Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Imagine for a moment that CA were to lose those 3 seats and they went to more right-leaning states. Imagine that the House became very close and those 3 seats made the difference between a Republican speaker and a Democrat Speaker, and majority. It's about maintaining those seats to keep them solidly blue. I would expect the same fight if the seats could be lost in a red state.
Imagine if the Feds didn't have power like the founders envisioned and the states got to decide more things for themselves?
Ummm... I would be shocked if Texas lost anything. People have been moving here from everywhere.
The same obvious reason as California. Texas has 2 million strong illegal immigrant population. As a matter of fact, as a percentage of the population, TX ranks higher than CA.
TX has 797 000 residents per House seat, and if you remove 2 million people in the census, they will lose 2 seats.
Democrats have always wanted their people of color to increase their clout and representation without having full rights. They used this mechanism in the South when they used the 3/5 clause to count their slaves and they are attempting to use it again now to count their Hispanics.
How many illegals actually vote? Nada. You’re all paranoid as usual.
This has nothing to do with voting. Do you understand that a state's number of Representatives and electoral votes is dependent on the state's population? Illegals should not be counted, pure and simple.
Texas has had enough growth in terms of domestic migration and natural increase that they are unlikely to lose seats (although they may not gain as many as they would've without the census question). California is a different story. Overall an undercount of non-citizens would probably benefit the Republicans. Oddly enough that means Minnesota, one of the states where the census question would very likely result in it keeping a seat that it was bound to lose in 2020, was actually against the question when the idea first came up.
The same obvious reason as California. Texas has 2 million strong illegal immigrant population. As a matter of fact, as a percentage of the population, TX ranks higher than CA.
TX has 797 000 residents per House seat, and if you remove 2 million people in the census, they will lose 2 seats.
I'm here. I see it. I'm not worried.
Even if we lost seats... they are here illegally. They shouldn't be counted... they shouldn't be here.
Given the current hysteria, and polarized atmosphere, surrounding the immigration issue, I imagine many of the legal non-citizen residents of the US will also think twice before filling out the census.
Hysteria? Um no, justified objection. Illegal immigration isn't "immigration" either.
Even if we lost seats... they are here illegally. They shouldn't be counted... they shouldn't be here.
Its weird you worry about California when your own State has the same exact problem.
The census is not meant to count citizens only, but all people. The data is used in public works planning like roadways. If your numbers are low, everyone will end up sitting in traffic because the new road has one lane too few.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
