Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Vitter-Bennett Census Amendment—Count Citizens, Stop Swamping America!

A very timely post from www.vdare.com about two senators who are not trying to reward lawbreakers.

The Vitter-Bennett Census Amendment—Count Citizens, Stop Swamping America!
By Washington Watcher
In our Politically Correct age, the fact that the U.S. Constitution counted African Americans as "three fifths" of a person for the purpose of apportionment is regularly bemoaned.
But it’s less noted that those who wanted blacks to be counted as full persons did not do so out of egalitarian principle. They were delegates from the Southern states aiming to increase their political power by having slaves counted.
Similarly today, the Left wants to use the Census to entrench its political power by ensuring that as many illegal aliens as possible get counted. This would increase Congressional representation, because apportionment is on the basis of population not citizenship, skew the Electoral College to immigrant-impacted states, and (of course) mean yet more taxpayer-funded goodies for Hispanics.
The Census Bureau actively promotes this effort. It wants U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to suspend immigration enforcement during the count.
In 1980, 1990 and in 2000, the late unlamented Immigration and Naturalization Service did suspend immigration raids during the census. Back then, there were significantly fewer illegal aliens, and even less enforcement of our immigration laws. Suspending enforcement today would be an even bigger affront to the rule of law than it was in the last three censuses. Fortunately, Americans are much more outraged over illegal immigration, so it is unlikely this will become policy.
But the Bureau will spend an estimated $300 million to maximize the number of immigrants counted. Its tools include Public Service Announcements in English and Spanish, "Immigrant Awareness" posters, and multilingual survey forms.
More disturbingly, "Part of the outreach will occur through Census Bureau alliances with institutions such as churches and ethnic organizations to inform communities and overcome fears of working with the federal government." [To accurately count immigrants, 2010 census will include outreach in more languages, by Juliana Barbassa, Associated Press, October 14, 2009]
One of these "alliances" is with the notorious ethnic lobby National Council of La Raza allies. According to La Raza itself:
"In 1990 NCLR became one of five national organizations to form the first group of "Census Information Centers." (CIC) The CIC program partners, now expanded to include 60 organizations in the 50 states and in Puerto Rico, work with the U.S. Bureau of the Census to:
Educate members of their community on how to access and use Census data.
Motivate and train non-traditional data users to use Census data and apply the data to their needs.
Work collaboratively with the Census Bureau to support ongoing data collection activities and to raise awareness about the importance of Census data.
"As a result of its long relationship with the Census Bureau, NCLR has been able to produce numerous analyses, fact sheets, and other products that include social and economic data on the Hispanic population, and to increase dissemination of Census data to the members of the NCLR affiliate network." [NCLR Census Information Center, National Council for La Raza’s website]
It goes without saying that groups like La Raza have every incentive to do what they can to overcount the number of Hispanics. Until they were thoroughly exposed and disgraced, ACORN was also a partner with the Census.
Not all Open Borders groups want Hispanics to participate in the Census. The National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders is calling "for a boycott, asking for non-cooperation with the Census, until there's just and comprehensive immigration reform and legal status for everybody." [Census Boycott Splits Latinos, by Marcello Ballvé, New America Media, September 23, 2009]
Nonetheless, the bulk of the organized Hispanic lobbies are on board with working with the Census Bureau.
The New York Times recently ran an editorial headlined "How to Waste Money and Ruin the Census". [October 19, 2009]. Was it opposed to giving hundreds of millions of tax dollars to help left wing groups count illegal aliens—and in turn get billions of dollars in federal funding?
Of course not! It was referring to a common-sense solution to the illegal immigration problem. Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) have proposed an amendment to the census appropriation bill requiring that the Census ask residents being counted for their citizenship and immigration status, and that Congress not include non-citizens for the purpose of apportionment.
According to the NYT, "Mr. Vitter’s demand would delay the count, could skew the results and would certainly make it even harder to persuade minorities to participate."
Some critics also claim that the Vitter-Bennett amendment will violate the 14th Amendment:
"Critics also point out that the Constitution only says the government must perform an ‘enumeration’ and says nothing explicitly about citizenship. Some groups also see the Vitter-Bennett amendment as a direct affront to the 14th Amendment, which discusses ‘equal protection’ and that House seats will be apportioned to the states ‘according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.’ Nothing explicit there about citizenship, they say." [Citizenship and the Census, by Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post's Eye Opener Blog, October 15, 2009]
Of course, this purported 14th Amendment problem could be solved straightforwardly by a constitutional Amendment. And indeed in the beginning of the year, Rep. Candice Miller (R- MI) proposed "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States."
Rep Miller only got 16 co-sponsors. But given the heightened interest in the issue, the amendment could gain much more traction in the coming weeks.
Of course, any constitutional amendment is a struggle to get ratified. But the struggle itself would force politicians to stand up and be counted on the issue.
Furthermore, it is not even clear that a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to bar non-citizens from being counted. Article I, Section 2 of The Constitution states
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment abolished the three fifths clause and added,
“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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
The first sentence is pretty straightforward, but the second sentence needs to be placed in historic context. When the Amendment was written, blacks were not guaranteed the franchise by the Federal Government. Both Southern and some Northern States still denied African Americans the right to vote. As the South had no say in the 14th Amendment, if Mississippi barred African Americans voting, it would lose 1/3 of its representatives, but the effect would be negligible if Iowa were to do the same.
The 15th Amendment made this obsolete by guaranteeing the franchise regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e. slavery). But the fact that the 14th Amendment still excluded Indians or disenfranchised blacks for the purposes of apportionment contradicts the notion that the Constitution demands all residents must be factored in.
The courts have not decided directly on this issue. But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case Barnett v. City of Chicago (1998) that giving non-citizens "virtual representation" diminishes the voting rights of citizens.
The case dealt with the redistricting of Aldermanic wards in Chicago along racial lines. The Voting Rights Act is currently interpreted to require some gerrymandering of districts to ensure that ethnic groups are represented. In Chicago, Latinos had a lower percentage of majority Hispanic wards than their share of the population of the city.
But, writing for the majority, Judge Richard Posner concluded that the non-citizen Hispanics should not be considered because,
"Neither the census nor any other policy or practice suggests that Congress wants noncitizens to participate in the electoral system as fully as the concept of virtual representation would allow, although permanent resident aliens are permitted to make federal campaign contributions, 2 U.S.C. sec. 441e, as are certain other nonvoters. The right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship. The dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote either directly or by the conferral of additional voting power on citizens believed to have a community of interest with the noncitizens--that being the premise of the Latinos' claim in this litigation.” [Richard Barnett, Personally, Etc., Et Al. V City Of Chicago, Et Al. And Carole Bialczak, Richard Posner for the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Decided April 1, 1998]
The Barnett decision does not address U.S. Congressional apportionment. But the principle supports Sen. Vitter’s proposal.
Like most 14th Amendment problems, this is a grey area. The framers of the Amendment were dealing with the difficult issue of integrating former African American slaves into society. They did not anticipate tens of millions of illegal aliens swamping our country, still less that the combination of legal and illegal immigration from non-traditional sources would have shifted the racial balance to the point where America’s historic white core—the "posterity" for whom the Founding Fathers, all of them without exception white, said in the Constitution’s Preamble that they sought to ensure the "Blessings of Liberty"—is about to be forced, by public policy, into a minority.
But it’s an argument that patriotic immigration reform lawyers should explore.
In the meantime, I have a modest proposal on how to deal with the problem that illegal aliens pose for the Census: Deport them before we start counting!
"Washington Watcher" [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

2 comments:

Brittanicus said...

As I perceive it the hardest place to install E-Verify, 287 G, or even directing ICE to raid employers is Sanctuary Cities and even States? CALIFORNIA seems to be the epitome of Sanctuary States, but it is estimated to be 127 cities and towns that ignore the US government. San Francisco and Los Angeles stands out as being Sanctuary cities where it's mayors Galvin Newsom and Antonio R. Villaraigosa, along with an compliment of police departments who have cultivated over the years a refuge for the impoverished illegal immigrants, illegal criminal of other countries. Very few businesses have enforced E-Verify, because at this time there is no mandatory law, except for federal contractors/subcontractors. Sen. Sessions has at this time been the fortress against illegal immigration through the Bush and now President Obama administrations. He is determined to adjoin E-Verify as a permanent amendment to the Senate Unemployment benefit extension bill H.R.3548 for 14 weeks. In the same amendment Sen. Sessions would require new applicants for unemployment compensation to have their citizenship status verified using E-Verify. The computer software program E-Verify could also be used for identifying applicants for drivers licenses, automotive insurance, all health care benefits, real estate purchases and mortgage and of course ineligible workers. Even the Public option if enacted in health care could be used to verify all positive recipients and over time become a very sophisticated matrix of data bases to reject ineligible applicants for government benefits.

Senate leaders are currently negotiating which amendments will be considered for the bill, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is trying to prevent a vote on the amendment altogether. E-Verify is becoming a significant potent weapon against illegal immigration in the ongoing battle. It has come under constant legal bombardment by a long list of open border organizations, including the US chamber of Commerce. E-Verify however remains intact, although other enforcement tools such as 287 G, has been weakened by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano. Without millions of dollars being appropriated, E-Verify on a continuous basis can eradicate illegal labor for pennies. No need for mass deportation as E-Verify will streamline removal of foreign nationals, owing to parasite businesses will be in incessant fear of being fined or sentenced to a prison term if apprehended by ICE for using illegal workers. As with 2010 census? Those who entered without--THE PEOPLE'S--permission, have violated our laws, and should not, must not be allowed to be enumerated in the decennial census? Is Washington so sure that they will pass this 2nd Amnesty, when Ted Kennedy previous comprehensive immigration reform turned into fraudulent travesty?

Ordinary American workers have become watchdogs for suspicious activity in the working environment. My blogs, comments and articles are limited in information, but keep this issue under public scrutiny. For more details of malevolent politicians who need to be constantly reminded who they work for? For immigration enforcement grading NUMBERSUSA. To light a fire under nonchalant politicians who are selling American workers futures to highest bidder contact WASHINGTON at 202-224-3121 As easily as you voted for these people, you can vote them OUT? Demand NO--MORE--AMNESTIES. Rebuild a two-tier Southern border fence as originally intended. TELL THEM YOU WANT PERMANENT E-VERIFY FOR EVERY WORKER, WHO’S ON A PAYROLL. STAND WITH SEN. SESSIONS. Study the corruption in every level of government at JUDICIAL WATCH. Read about unstoppable OVERPOPULATION GROWTH at CAPSWEB. Read lists of legislators are trying to push through another path to citizenship--alias AMNESTY at http://tinyurl.com/CIR-letter-to-POTUS. THESE CONGRESSMAN/ WOMEN WANT TO STEAL YOUR JOB AND GIVE IT TO ILLEGAL ALIENS? KEEP THEM EMBOSSED IN YOUR MEMORY AND UNSEAT THEM WHEN THEY COME FORWARD FOR RE-ELECTION.

Strive 4 Progress said...

I would like to begin by reminding both Brian Lee and Britannicus there are many ethnic groups besides hispanics that define an illegal immigrant. It is a grossly incorrect assumption to hold that only hispanics are illegal immigrants who are "swamping our country". Brittanicus, not only do illegal immigrants take the jobs that American citizens do NOT want, but regardless of their citizenship status, illegal immigrants are consumers as well. This means they promote economical growth equal to citizens. They provide for financial growth in the same american companies you and myself do. Brittanicus, think for a moment about the food you consume. Think about how it got onto your dinner table. Of course you went to your local grocery store and purchased the food, but think deeper. How did it get to your grocery store in the first place? Well it was not American citizens that grew and harvested the fruit and vegtables you are able to enjoy. It was the illegal immigrants that worked the fields in which that food grew. It was their bodys that endured the harsh weather of early morning and late evenings as they worked, and their backs that bent over through the endless,scorching heat so that their tired stiff hands could pick the food that you see in every grocery store. Immigrants do not take jobs from Americans, they take the jobs Americans refuse to do. Americans do not want labor intensive jobs with long hours and little pay, they do not want to work cleaning up after others in restaurant, office, or hotel businesses without employee benefits. Brian Lee your opinion
is pervertedly twisted, it is not hispanics who enjoy taxpayer-funded goodies, it is the taxpayers who enjoy goodies from hispanics! Many abuse the fact that illegal immigrants have no eductation or rights and extort them into harsh working conditions and a below standard way of life. Understand the consequences of your suggestion. If all immigrants were gone, who would do the jobs they did? How would our food get to grocery stores, how would toilets and bathrooms get cleaned if it wasnt for the immigrants that performed those tasks? Well Americans would take the jobs this is true. But they would do so only with higher wages, benefits, and better working conditions. This would be fine if it had no consequences. Unfortunaltey you cannot isolate this factor from the rest of our economy. Because it would cost more for employers to have and provide for employees, the price placed on food and services would increase dramatically. This would spike inflation within our domestic economy while weakening the American dollar in foreign economies. Each result could snowball into an even greater problem, and America would find itself in a worse situation than the one we face today.

Whether or not we agree on immigration or whether they are counted in the census as a whole or not counted at all, we fail to address the real issue at hand. We need to make WISE, well thought decisions to take action on our immigration issues.