I must have been very uninformed about this topic. Is this an accurate statement?

All non citizens that are living in the United States are counted in the census. These numbers determine the number of members of Congress.

How are non citizens allowed to be counted and then the electoral college votes are based on the number of Senate and Congressional Seats? How is this allowed to stand legally?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Foreign Born (census.gov)

Yes.

Musk was talking about this over the weekend because the sanctuary states get more population. He estimates 20 extra house seats and electoral college votes.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/24/how-removing-unauthorized-immigrants-from-census-statistics-could-affect-house-reapportionment/

This has been an ongoing fight.

California and other states (like Illinois, NY, etc) have led the way, because they're losing population...and will lose seats.

It starts to make sense why Cali is wooing all the illegals they can. Recently they've been offering a pathway to easier homeownership with a special loan for illegals, free legal help for illegals with a criminal past, free healthcare, cash for illegal seniors, etc etc.

They are actively trying to replace the population that they're losing.

jt2hunt said:

---

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/24/how-removing-unauthorized-immigrants-from-census-statistics-could-affect-house-reapportionment/

---

That data was 2020. A LOT has changed since then with illegal immigration.

This data only goes through 2022 but it gives a good idea of the shocking increase.

Border crossing encounters U.S. 1990-2022 | Statista

After they get a number, we'll know how many counts to charge the administration with.

AgGrad99 said:

---

This has been an ongoing fight.

California and other states (like Illinois, NY, etc) have led the way, because they're losing population...and will lose seats.

It starts to make sense why Cali is wooing all the illegals they can. Recently they've been offering a pathway to easier homeownership with a special loan for illegals, free legal help for illegals with a criminal past, free healthcare, cash for illegal seniors, etc etc.

They are actively trying to replace the population that they're losing.

---

And this is why I find Dems stupid. It's like they don't understand why people are leaving the state.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

After they get a number, we'll know how many counts to charge the administration with.

---

That's wishful thinking. Who's going to charge the Administration? The minority party? Hell, the House is technically in REP control, but even those losers can't grab their sacks and throw the book at Hunter Biden, much less Pedo Joe.

Seriously, there's no path forward to stop this. It's done, time to sit back and wait until things deteriorate to the point that Texit is an actuality, not a pipe dream.

Quote:

---

And this is why I find Dems stupid. It's like they don't understand why people are leaving the state.

---

Yep...and it's detrimental to the entire country if they're allowed to do this.

Besides the illegals they're letting in...they have no incentive to actually make improvements and enact positive/productive changes that would bring people back to their State. So they slide further, as do the rest who follow, and we're in much worse shape collectively.

If this stopped, they'd be forced to actually improve their State's policies. What a concept!

First, I don't know how you count illegal immigrants. It is not like they're reporting themselves and employers certainly aren't doing it either. But here is a fun picture:


Second, the states with the most illegal immigrants (2 of the top 3 voted GOP in last presidential election):
- California (D)
- Texas (R)
- Florida (R)
PEW RESEARCH CENTER

Third, I know we all here like to abide by every letter in the Constitution:

Quote:

---

The Constitution has spelled out specific instructions for the census. Not just citizens or voters, but "persons" who reside in the states are supposed to be counted. Congress eventually codified the 14th Amendment's language into federal law that calls for the "whole number of persons" living in each state and the "tabulation of total population" to be used when re-apportioning House seats and electoral votes.

---

14th Amendment - Section 2

Fourth, I don't think it has as much affect as we think it would:

It looks like it would be the aforementioned states, California, Texas, and Florida, each losing one seat and Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio each gaining a seat. And then whichever political party is in charge will just gerrymander the map so it is the opposing party that loses a seat. Plus, we all know that when less people vote, Republicans gain an edge.

Interestingly, according to Pew Research Center, had illegals been eliminated from the 2020 counts, California, Florida and Texas would have each ended up with one fewer seat than awarded based on population change alone. The states that lost those three seats were Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/24/how-removing-unauthorized-immigrants-from-census-statistics-could-affect-house-reapportionment/

ETA: Above poster beat me to it. Sorry for the double post.

AgGrad99 said:

---

This has been an ongoing fight.

California and other states (like Illinois, NY, etc) have led the way, because they're losing population...and will lose seats.

It starts to make sense why Cali is wooing all the illegals they can. Recently they've been offering a pathway to easier homeownership with a special loan for illegals, free legal help for illegals with a criminal past, free healthcare, cash for illegal seniors, etc etc.

They are actively trying to replace the population that they're losing.

---

Which is funny, because the real answer should be "stop doing idiot socialist **** and people will move here"

jt2hunt said:

---

How are non citizens allowed to be counted and then the electoral college votes are based on the number of Senate and Congressional Seats? How is this allowed to stand legally?

---

it is not something that is "allowed," as if there were some option. It is mandated by the clear language of the constitution.

It would be hilarious to watch red states gain seats (and blue states lose them) due to this to a degree that has a sizeable impact shifting voting power to red states. Watch the moronic democrats change their tune.

Antoninus said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

How are non citizens allowed to be counted and then the electoral college votes are based on the number of Senate and Congressional Seats? How is this allowed to stand legally?

---

it is not something that is "allowed," as if there were some option. It is mandated by the clear language of the constitution.

---

It's not really "mandated" because the framers obviously didn't anticipate what's going on now. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should conclude that it doesn't apply to non-citizens. After all, what the Framers were talking about was "persons" in the context of white (1) and black (3/5ths), not millions of illegals from across the border.

Immediately, liberals turn into strict constructionists...

Jack Boyette said:

---

Immediately, liberals turn into strict constructionists...

---

it is certainly true that ideologues (on both sides) are constantly shifting their thoughts as to what schools of constitutional interpretation should apply, based entirely upon the end result.

I assure you, that is not the case for me. I have been a strict constructionist since my 1-L Constitution class, when I realized (contrary to what I was being taught by a liberal professor) that it was the only school of interpretation that makes any sense, because it is the closest school of interpretation to achieving "objectivity."

In the context of the drafting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, a person fleeing their home country and crossing an ocean was a daunting task and typically came with selfless reasons. The same for coming up from Central and South America.

Social safety nets were near obsolete at the time and anyone making the trip across the ocean was essentially proving they were not here to take advantage of the system but to contribute. Thus little need for strong wording against illegal immigrants being counted in determining our government. Though it also was not clearly written that they should count either.

I'm not saying illegal immigrants do not contribute today, but it's illogical to ignore the context of how easy it is to get here today and how large our social safety net is when it relates to should illegal immigrants be counted when determining our government.

YNWA.2013 said:

---

It looks like it would be the aforementioned states, California, Texas, and Florida, each losing one seat and Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio each gaining a seat. And then whichever political party is in charge will just gerrymander the map so it is the opposing party that loses a seat. Plus, we all know that when less people vote, Republicans gain an edge.

---

Nothing has remained stable. There are at least 40 million illegal aliens in the country.

Quote:

---

After all, what the Framers were talking about was "persons" in the context of white (1) and black (3/5ths),

---

this is not historically correct.

free black people were counted as whole persons. slaves were 3/5, not all black people.

the questions on first census let you choose from:

free white male 16 and older
free white male under 16
free white females
all other free people
slaves

Antoninus said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

How are non citizens allowed to be counted and then the electoral college votes are based on the number of Senate and Congressional Seats? How is this allowed to stand legally?

---

...

it is not something that is "allowed," as if there were some option. It is mandated by the clear language of the constitution.

---

Well, both sides could compromise and decide to only count 3/5 of the non-citizens to determine congressional representation. That could go over well. There is even precedent in the Constitution for it.

Jack Boyette said:

---

After all, what the Framers were talking about was "persons" in the context of white (1) and black (3/5ths), not millions of illegals from across the border.

---

that is what you think they were talking about. Those are not the words that they wrote.

you are either a strict constructionist, or you are not. I am.

Antoninus said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

Immediately, liberals turn into strict constructionists...

---

it is certainly true that ideologues (on both sides) are constantly shifting their thoughts as to what schools of constitutional interpretation should apply, based entirely upon the end result.

I assure you, that is not the case for me. I have been a strict constructionist since my 1-L Constitution class, when I realized (contrary to what I was being taught by a liberal professor) that it was the only school of interpretation that makes any sense, because it is the closest school of interpretation to achieving "objectivity."

---

And because the very fact that it can be amended implies that it's intended to be interpreted as written.

Antoninus said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

After all, what the Framers were talking about was "persons" in the context of white (1) and black (3/5ths), not millions of illegals from across the border.

---

that is what you think they were talking about. Those are not the words that they wrote.

you are either a strict constructionist, or you are not. I am.

---

I'm making a point, pal.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

After all, what the Framers were talking about was "persons" in the context of white (1) and black (3/5ths),

---

this is not historically correct.

free black people were counted as whole persons. slaves were 3/5, not all black people.

the questions on first census let you choose from:

free white male 16 and older
free white male under 16
free white females
all other free people
slaves

---

Yes, I know. I was making a point.

Tea Party said:

---

In the context of the drafting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, a person fleeing their home country and crossing an ocean was a daunting task and typically came with selfless reasons. The same for coming up from Central and South America.

Social safety nets were near obsolete at the time and anyone making the trip across the ocean was essentially proving they were not here to take advantage of the system but to contribute. Thus little need for strong wording against illegal immigrants being counted in determining our government. Though it also was not clearly written that they should count either.

I'm not saying illegal immigrants do not contribute today, but it's illogical to ignore the context of how easy it is to get here today and how large our social safety net is when it relates to should illegal immigrants be counted when determining our government.

---

Exactly why it should be amended.

I believe they use a formula on Illegals. Under trump, Texas was suppose to get one or two house seats, along with a few other states. Cali and New York were the states losing seats. Biden got in office and changed the formula to give back the seats. Shenanigans.

Why Did Biden Census Bureau Add 2.5 Million More Residents to Blue-State Population Count? (townhall.com)

BREAKING: In a 20-19 vote, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee advance a blatantly unconstitutional bill requiring the census to include a citizenship question starting in 2030, and limit the congressional seat count to just citizens. https://t.co/KyMSKnnQfo

— Democracy Docket (@DemocracyDocket) December 2, 2025

The 2030 census should be a major focus for Trump and republicans. All of the dirty **** the democrats have been doing over the last 4 years has been geared towards that census. Keep deporting illegals and fix the census laws to where the dems can't easily change them back.

They literally stole representation from red states in 2020.