Thread: Open borders, the census, sanctuary states, and the rule of apportionment

As we have seen firsthand, California, which happens to be a communist/socialist sanctuary State and openly encourages illegal immigration, gets the most number of Representatives [53 votes] in the House of Representatives because of our Constitution’s rule of apportionment, a rule which distributes each state’s number of representatives based upon its total population size which includes illegal entrants and non-citizens in the count.


Using available statistical information, approximately seven of California’s Representatives in the House are allocated because of its illegal and non-citizen population size. California’s illegal and non-citizen population is also used to determine California’s huge number of Electoral College votes which happens to be 55, beating out Texas which has 38, while New York and Florida both have a mere 29 votes each. The Electoral College vote determines who our President and Vice President is.


Politically speaking, California gets a very real benefit from swelling its population with illegal immigrants. It gets a larger vote in Congress when spending federal revenue because of its illegal entrant population size, and likewise gets a larger voice in determining who our President and Vice President is, also because of its illegal and non-citizen population which adds to its political influence.


Our Founder’s understood that apportioning each state’s number of representatives based upon each state’s population size, could very well encourage a state to swell or exaggerate its population size during our nation’s census, in order to gain additional Representatives which would translate into undue influence in Congress Assembled. But to prevent the states from exaggerating their population size in order to obtain additional Representatives and political influence, the rule of apportionment was also tied to each state’s share in financing our federal government by the following words: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . “ In other words, the larger a state’s representation in the House was, so too was that state’s share of any federal direct tax laid by Congress.


Unfortunately our communist and socialist government school teachers will not teach their students the wisdom and brilliance of our Founders applying the rule of apportionment to both taxation and representation. But I will!


Madison in Federalist No. 45 explains the wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to representatives and taxation as follows:


“Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”


Of course, since the rule of apportionment is no longer being applied to direct taxation as intended by our Founders and commanded by our Constitution, California is free to encourage illegal immigration into its state which increases its representation in Congress without also increasing its share of our federal tax burden. And this is a communists’ and socialists’ delight ___ representation without a proportional financial obligation.


It is also important to note that under the rule of apportionment when applied to direct taxation, the tax turns out to be an equal per capita tax. For example, if a direct tax were laid today to raise a specific sum and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet California’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California gets a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share apportioning formula! The two formulas are:


State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives

Population of U.S.


and . . .

.
State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

Total U.S. Population


However, as it now stands, approximately 15 states pay a higher per capita share of federal taxes than does California, but these states do not get representation in Congress proportionately equal to the per capita taxes paid as intended by the rule of apportionment.


Considering California’s love affair with illegal immigration used to increase its representation in Congress, Is it not time to have a conversation to discuss the wisdom, brilliance and merits of our founder’s rule tying taxation and representation by the same metric, and forcing California to pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden, proportionately equal to its representation in Congress?

JWK

Useful Links:

Federal per capita tax revenue by state

State demographics by citizenship status

Federal taxes paid by state per capita

U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016

Just for the record and to see an example of this apportioned tax being utilized by Congress, and documentation of each state’s bill for an apportioned tax, see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.


And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing each state to raise its share of the tax in their own chosen way and then pay their respective quota while being entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


Tell me, has any government school teacher ever taught you how the direct apportioned tax is to work? By contrast, is it not a fact that government school teachers embrace apportionment when it comes to “one man, one vote”?

JWK

They are not "liberals" or "progressives". The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nation's needy with free government cheese.

I take it most, if not all democrats, have no problem with California increasing its apportioned share of representatives by encouraging illegal immigration into its State, while it does not pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden which is also part of the rule of apportionment.

I understand California, after this coming census count, may receive another two or three representatives, mostly due to illegal immigration which would increase its number of representatives from illegal immigration up to ten, and its overall number of Representatives up to 56!

Of course the ten representatives California may have from illegal immigration, cancels out the entire House vote of 38 other states, a few of which pay more per capita in federal taxes than California’s population does. So much for our Constitution’s command that “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the various States”.

What is not surprising is, communists and socialists are just fine with representation without a proportional financial obligation. But why is there not one “conservative” tv/radio talk show host defending the brilliance and wisdom of our Founder’s rule of apportioning both representatives and taxation?

Here is the thinking of some of our Founders with regard to the necessity of apportioning both representatives and taxation by the same metric [population].

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

.
Is it not a common sense idea to lay a direct apportioned tax among the states, for example $50 billion, to pay the national cost connected to illegal immigration?

Under this tax, California which embraces illegal immigration and is a sanctuary State, would be charged with the highest share of the total sum being collected when following the fair share formula contained in our Constitution:

State`s population

_________________ X $ 50 BILLION = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

Total U.S. Population

For an example of this apportioned tax being utilized by Congress, and documentation of each state’s bill for an apportioned tax, see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

Since California is a sanctuary state and embraces illegal immigration, should it not pay its fair apportioned share of the national cost of illegal immigration?
Mr. PENDLETON points to the justice of the rule of apportioning during the ratification process of our Constitution as follows:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot’s 41

Since California has an overwhelming influence in the House [53 votes], and seven of those votes is due to California’s illegal entrant and non-citizen population ___ seven votes which cancels out the House vote of 38 other States ___ should California not pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden for exercising those votes as intended by our Founders?

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" ___ Justice Story

Laying a $50 billion apportioned tax among the states to cover the national costs of illegal immigration would be in compliance with our Constitution's fair share tax formula, and would require California to pay $5.6 billion while other states would only pay a fraction of that figure.

A number of states now pay a higher per capital share of our federal tax burden than does California which has an overwhelming representation in Congress. As a matter of fact, the seven votes California gets because of its illegal immigrant and non-citizen population, cancels out the representation in the House of 38 other states!

We really need to have a conversation about the merits, wisdom and protection involved with the rule of apportionment being applied totaxation as our founders intended!

Why are none of our "conservative" media personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others not having this conversation?

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story