Thread: Illegal Immigration is at Crossroads in Senate

Originally Posted by Judy

Mamie--MOST DEFINITELY!! And if you will read some of my recent posts, you'll see that I've found that this is the mission of La Raza, to get the votes out whether the Hispanic voter is legal or not. That is how they can turn elections and divert a legal normal compliant policy directive of the United States. It is highly calculated and has been planned for several years to change the political power of the United States.

how the 2004 election was affected by "illegal aliens"

States Robbed of Political Voice by Illegal Aliens
NewsMax.com
Friday, Oct. 24, 2003
A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies shows how non-citizens have robbed U.S. citizens of political representation. Among the findings:


Indiana, Michigan and Mississippi to each lose a seat in the U.S. House of Representaives in 2000 because of illegal aliens in other states, and Montana did not regain the seat it should have.

California added three House seats and North Carolina added one because of illegal aliens.

Legal non-citizens and illegal aliens caused the redistribution of nine seats. In addition to the four aforementioned states that lost because of illegal aliens, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each lost a seat, while Kentucky and Utah failed to gain a seat they otherwise would have.


The presence of legal and illegal non-citizens added six seats in California and one each in Florida and Texas and gave New York a seat it otherwise would have lost.

None of the states that lost representation because of non-citizens have a declining population. The population of the four states robbed of seats by illegal aliens grew 1.6 million in the 1990s, and the population of the five states that lost seats because of other non-citizens grew 2 million.


Immigration also interferes with presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.

In the states that lost a seat because of non-citizens, only 1 in 50 residents is a not a U.S. citizen, compared to 1 in 7 residents in California, which picked up most of the seats.

It took about 100,000 voters to win the typical congressional race in the states robbed of a seat by non-citizens, whereas it took fewer than 35,000 votes to win the immigrant-heavy 34rd and 31st districts of California.


http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIss...m?ID=2520&c=13

Illegal Immigrants Distort Congressional Representation and Federal Programs

Most Americans know that their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on proportional representation as determined by the decennial Census. And, many Americans are aware that the Census takers try to count everybody residing in the country. But, most Americans have no idea that illegal immigrants and other foreigners who are not permanent residents are part of the calculation for the distribution of Congressional representatives. If the population of illegal aliens and other long-term foreign residents were inconsequential, this would not be an important issue. However, with an estimated 7 million illegal aliens in 2000, and many millions more today, this is a valid major concern.

Because illegal aliens should not even be in the country, and other residents such as foreign students are here only temporarily, it makes no sense to distribute Congressional seats as if these foreign nationals deserved representation the same as American citizens. On the basis of the current Census questionnaire, however, there is no way to determine if a foreign resident is legally or illegally in the country. But the Census does ask whether persons are U.S. citizens. It could also ask persons who are not U.S. citizens if they are legal permanent residents ("green card" holders). If Congress changed the system so that representation in the House of Representatives reflects the distribution of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, the Census Bureau could provide that information as readily as it provides the current data that is used in the apportionment of seats among the states.

As a result of the current incoherent system of allocating seats based on all persons counted in the Census, some Member of Congress represent many fewer U.S. citizens and permanent residents than others. Similarly, some states that have large numbers of illegal aliens and other non-citizens gain the advantage of additional representation in Congress at the expense of states that have fewer illegal aliens and non-citizens, since the total number in the House of Representatives is currently fixed by law at 435 members.

Besides the distortions in apportionment of representation among the states and in the number of citizens represented by each representative, the Census also causes distortions when it is used to allocate federal public assistance funds among the states. Because illegal aliens are not entitled to public welfare assistance, it makes no sense that they would be counted in the apportionment of federal funding.

Welfare funds, however, are available to legal permanent residents, with some restrictions. So, to determine the distribution of those funds, the Census Bureau, should be required by Congress to estimate the size of the population eligible for the benefits.

The Constitution might have to be amended to achieve a more proportional representation of U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment, Section 2 states, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." This has been interpreted to mean resident aliens should also be counted. However, the clear intent of the provision was to count persons who are permanent residents, and illegal aliens who are subject to deportation and foreign students or workers temporarily in the country do not meet that criterion.
Congress needs to enact a law that defines persons counted for purposes of apportionment as those permanently resident, and explicitly exclude illegal aliens and other nonimmigrants.



9/04
[/url]

THANKS MAMIE!! That just about sums it up don't you think? This is an illegal taking of the political power of the United States by foreign nationals which means foreign governments which means enemies of the sovereignty of the United States and the national security of the American People.

Originally Posted by Judy

THANKS MAMIE!! That just about sums it up don't you think? This is an illegal taking of the political power of the United States by foreign nationals which means foreign governments which means enemies of the sovereignty of the United States and the national security of the American People.

frightening isn't it? and our Congress is letting them do it

Rumsfeld: 'The last thing we need is a draft'
From CNN's Paul Courson
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 Posted: 7:11 PM EDT (2311 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has sent letters to congressional leaders urging them to pass the final 2005 budget supplemental bill before the Army runs out of operating funds.

The Army has slowed its spending, so it can continue operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through early May when the funds are due to run out, Rumsfeld said.

He sent the letters Wednesday, along with handwritten notes that read, "Our folks out there need these funds."

The letters were sent to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran.

"I want to emphasize how important it is that Congress pass the final legislation prior to the upcoming Senate recess," Rumsfeld wrote in the letter.

The Senate is due to recess on Friday.

Without its passage, Rumsfeld warned he would have to move funds which would "seriously disrupt other activities," and he might have to invoke the "Feed and Forage Act" to keep the deployed troops operating.

The Feed and Forage Act allows the military departments to incur obligations in excess of available appropriations for clothing, subsistence, fuel, quarters, transportation and medical supplies, according to Pentagon officials.

Rumsfeld invoked the act in September 2001 after the terrorist attacks on the United States.

Military budget gets Senate hearing

The Pentagon's military budget was the focus of a Senate hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday. Lawmakers questioned Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the military draft, troop levels in Iraq, armor for troops and something called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democrat from Hawaii, said, "For the first time in many years the Army and Marine Corps are not meeting their recruiting targets. There are some who are already discussing the draft."

Rumsfeld leaned closer to the microphone and said, "I think the only people who could conceivably be talking about a draft are people who are speaking from pinnacles of near-perfect ignorance."

He added, "The last thing we need is a draft. We just don't." He explained that recruitment and retention in the part-time forces have been affected by active duty troops who are staying longer in the regular military.

Rumsfeld also staunchly defended the number of U.S. troops used in post-major combat operations in Iraq, saying the Pentagon has consistently followed the recommendations of commanders on the ground.

He also refuted comments made in 2003 by Gen. Eric Shinseki, then-Army Chief of Staff, who said he believed several hundred thousand soldiers might be required in Iraq following major combat -- a figure far lower than the actual number of soldiers there.

"The fact of the matter is that the military experts on the ground from the beginning have said what they thought the number ought to be," Rumsfeld said.

"The more troops you have, the more targets you have, and the more people you might get killed. The more troops you have, the more of an occupying power you are, the heavier footprint, the more force protection you need, the more logistics you need and the more intrusive you are on the people of that country."

The size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq has ranged from about 110,000 to 150,000 since May 2003, when President Bush declared major combat operations were over.

Rumsfeld noted the Soviet Union had 300,000 troops in Afghanistan during the war there in the 1980s and that "they lost." He said the United States used a fraction of that force and quickly toppled the Taliban in a matter of months following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Testifying at the same hearing, Myers said that before the Iraq war was launched Bush met with his commanders and asked if "anybody had any reservations, if they had everything we needed, and if we're ready to go."

"Everybody gave a thumbs-up on that," he said, adding Shinseki was present.

Asked if Shinseki had raised any objections, Myers said, he "certainly didn't bring up a couple hundred thousand" troops for post-combat operations.

"All the service chiefs were in total support of Gen. [Tommy] Franks' plan, the numbers we had planned, all of that. We were all on board," Myers said.

Fortified, 38-pound leggings

Rumsfeld also discussed a prototype version of fortified leggings the Army wants to try. At $9,400 a pair, they use air conditioning technology and weigh 38 pounds, according to one lawmaker, who asked whether they could protect a soldier from roadside bombs.

Rumsfeld did not address the cost or the effectiveness of the prototype, saying instead that the idea is to avoid having "vehicles operating without appropriate armor in areas outside of protected compounds."

Myers said, "There is an effort ongoing in the armed services to continually improve the garments they wear," to deal with an increased threat.

Myers is slated to retire from the military September 30 after 40 years. Last Friday President Bush named Marine Gen. Peter Pace Myers' successor.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democrat from Hawaii, said, "For the first time in many years the Army and Marine Corps are not meeting their recruiting targets. There are some who are already discussing the draft."

Leave it to a Dim boob to bring this up again. It's referred to as BLACKMAIL.

The size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq has ranged from about 110,000 to 150,000 since May 2003, when President Bush declared major combat operations were over.

Rumsfeld noted the Soviet Union had 300,000 troops in Afghanistan during the war there in the 1980s and that "they lost." He said the United States used a fraction of that force and quickly toppled the Taliban in a matter of months following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

there are an estimated 15,000 illegal aliens crossing the border into California each day from Mexico and an estimated 5,000 crossing into Arizona -- that's 600,000 a month and 7,200,000 a year, the United States is losing the war for national security and sovereignty based on numbers alone.

I love our soldiers dearly but it doesn't surprise me one bit that people don't enlist to go to the Middle East and defend people who hate us and don't want us in their country.

However, I will bet you dollars to donuts that if we put troops on our OWN border, people would enlist in a heartbeat.

However, I will bet you dollars to donuts that if we put troops on our OWN border, people would enlist in a heartbeat

they'd be willing to do it for free like the Minuteman Project. If the states had the militia that was separate from the federal government I'm sure plenty of people would volunteer.