OPINION: Bad Math

The Paducah Sun (Kentucky)
August 12, 2009 Wednesday
COMMENTARY ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION
David Cox, The Paducah Sun, Ky.

Aug. 12--People who are not citizens of the United States are threatening to give up their rights as citizens unless we make them citizens. Is this a great country, or what?

Some Hispanic organizations are urging illegal residents to boycott the 2010 census. Yes, boycott. These are illegal residents of the United States, flexing their political muscle by refusing to participate in the census. You may be wondering what possible effect that could have.

Plenty.

States with large populations of illegal immigrants count on the enumeration of those residents to boost their representation in Congress. "We realize that the census is very important in setting Congressional districts and determining the distribution of funds," said Rev. Migeul Rivera, director of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC). "... There is no other alternative in applying pressure to Congress to achieve fair and comprehensive immigration reform."

CONLAMIC is one of the organizations trying to pressure members of Congress in states with large numbers of undocumented residents to pass legislation that provides a path to U.S. citizenship for those illegal residents. The Coalition has launched a boycott campaign entitled "Legalization Before Enumeration."

If they have their way, only citizens and legal residents will be counted in the census. On that point, they have an ally in the anti-immigration movement. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

If you, dear reader, did not know that illegal residents were counted in the census, you're not alone. Many Americans aren't aware of it. Yet illegal residents have been counted in the census since 1980. In previous counts, however, at least citizenship status was tracked. Not anymore.

According to a column by John Baker and Elliott Stonecipher in the Wall Street Journal, the 2010 census will not ask questions about citizenship. The article quotes Dr. Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau's Immigration Statistics staff, explaining, "Congress has not asked us to do that." Dropping the question about citizenship may blunt CONLAMIC's boycott; without fear of deportment, illegal residents will be more likely to participate -- which may reflect the politics behind this census.

The censuses of 1980, 1990 and 2000 did not distinguish illegal residents from citizens and permanent, legal residents. House apportionment has been skewed because of it. The census determines the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New York, Illinois and New Jersey all have higher representation in Congress because of illegal residents.

California is projected to have 37 million residents in the 2010 decennial census, but that total includes 5.6 million noncitizens. So instead of 48 seats, California will likely have 57 in the newly apportioned House of Representatives. The noncitizen population in Texas nets the state four additional House seats.

And because the number of U.S. representatives is constant -- at 435 -- that leaves other states underrepresented.

Baker and Stonecipher point out that the first decennial census, taken in 1790, counted "inhabitants," defined as "a bona fide member of a State, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer." Citizenship was assumed. Noncitizens are not constitutionally entitled to representation in Congress.

However Washington eventually resolves the problem of illegal residents -- a path to citizenship with reasonable penalties is the likely solution -- House seats should not be allotted for those living within our borders illegally.

To see more of The Paducah Sun, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.paducahsun.com.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/En ... 99&start=3