WHY DO YOU THINK THE DEMOCRATS WANT ILLEGAL ALIENS COUNTED IN THE CENSUS?
THEY USE THE CENSUS NUMBERS TO APPORTION CONGRESSIONAL SEATS !
TRUMP NEEDS TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AND LET THE SUPREME COURT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.
If you have not figured it out yet... let me make you aware that the plan to steal America is a Multi pronged approach ! Getting more Democrat Congressmen is part of the plan.
THAT'S THE PLAN!!
Those who have wanted to steal America for over 50 years have had a long term multi pronged approach to taking over America. Lets get this straight.. they do not want to "destroy America" .. They want to steal it intact with ALL its natural resources available to create their "New America" with the riches, resources and infrastructure in place so that their Gang can run a New Oligarchy that can economically sustain itself for the next 200+ years.
United States has
> Total resource value: $45 trillion
> Oil reserves (value): in top 3
> Natural gas reserves (value): 272.5 trillion cu. ft. ($3.1 trillion)
> Timber reserves (value): 750 million acres ($10.9 trillion)
and that excludes the Infra structure and accessibility.
The U.S. has 31.2% of the world’s proved coal reserves. Worth an estimated $30 trillion, this is by far the most valuable supply of any nation on earth. There is also 750 million forested acres in the country, which are worth nearly $11 trillion. Timber and coal combined are worth roughly 89% of the country’s total natural resource value. The U.S. is also in the top five nations globally for copper, gold and natural gas.If you read through my blog you will see various schemes of this multi pronged attack. They anticipated that Hillary Clinton would win and the march towards this Socialist Oligarchical State would continue... but Donald Trump won the Presidency and stopped the smooth transition they had expected!.. Their fight has become more complicated now and.. they have had to expose themselves for who they are much earlier than expected..
The following information is provided so that you can see how the Left has created a scheme to create more Congressional Seats that will vote for their cause. All their plans are very subtle and when observed one at a separate separate from other actions they look random.. but looked at from the elevated view where you can see all the pieces of this planned patchwork quilt you realize they have a plan and they are executing it effectively.
Conservatives are one dimensional actors.. and they love playing "Whack a Mole". The reality is that WE SHOULD BE DESTROYING THE WHOLE MOLE TABLE WITH ONE WHACK!
Read up and plan a Comprehensive Fight back.
Illegals do not have to vote just yet ... all they have to do is to be counted in every census! You must realize that when the Constitution was written the Founding Fathers had no idea that there would come a time when the Country would be attacked from within. They had no idea that the Infiltration of America would not be by Armed Enemies but a clever scheme to destroy us from within. That is why
Why the Census SHOULD NOT Count Undocumented Immigrants
A Matter of Equal Representation and Politics
Counting undocumented immigrants in the census undermines the
fundamental principle of American representative democracy that every
voter has an equal voice. Through the census-based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of undocumented aliens will unconstitutionally gain members in the U.S. House of Representatives thus robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation.
In addition, an inflated population count resulting from the
inclusion of undocumented immigrants would increase the number of votes
some states get in the electoral college system, the actual process of electing the President of the United States.
In short, including undocumented immigrants in the census count will
unjustly bestow additional political power in states where lax
enforcement of immigration laws attract large populations of
undocumented aliens, such as California, Texas and other states in which
Democrats seek to gain greater influence over national politics.
Get the Picture?
From
Testimony prepared for the House Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census
December 6, 2005
Steven A. Camarota
Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies
The United States is currently experiencing the largest sustained wave of immigration in its history, with 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country each year. The foreign born or immigrant population stood at over 31 million in the 2000 Census, and the total has grown to 36 million by the end of 2005.1 There is an unfortunate tendency to view this immigration one dimensionally. Some see immigrants only as workers, other see them as a potential voters, or only the fiscal problem they may create, still others see only possible terrorists. All of these perspectives capture some aspect of immigration. But immigrants are much more than this. Immigrants are not simply things, they are human beings. As a result, their presence in the United States has wide ranging economic, cultural, demographic, national security, and political effects on our country. Whether one thinks the effects of immigration is on balance a net gain or a net loss to the country, the fact remains its impact is very broad and not confined to one area.
This hearing is going to discuss one of the most often overlooked, but nonetheless important, effects they have: on political representation. If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be that allowing in people, even as guest workers or just tolerating illegal immigration, has board ranging effects. These effects include such things as the redistribution of House seats. For example, if we take the 11 million illegals already here and grant them temporary status, the Census in 2010 will still count them, and seats will still be apportioned to states based on their presence. On the other hand, if we enforce the law and make most illegals go home, this too will have apportionment consequences in 2010. In our discussion of immigration, therefore, we should not compartmentalize its various impacts; instead, we must recognize the broad implications of immigration on virtually every aspect of American life, including apportionment.
Overall Numbers
Number of Non-Citizens in 2000. The 2000 Census showed 18.6 million or almost 60 percent of the foreign born were not U.S. citizens.2 It should be noted that figures for the foreign born, including those for citizenship, are from the Census long form, which only about one-sixth percent of the nation's population receives. Of the more than 18 million non-citizens who responded to the Census in 2000, there is widespread agreement that 7 or 8 million were illegal aliens, and 1 to 1.5 million were on long-term temporary visa, such as guest workers and foreign students.3 Non-citizens comprised 6.6 percent of the nation's total population in 2000.
Growth in Non-Citizen Population. Overall, growth in the non-citizen population is the product of new immigration, but this is offset by those green card holders who choose to naturalize, those non-citizens who die, and those who return home. In 1990, there were 11.8 million non-citizens, up from 7 million in the 1980 Census.
Thus, during the 1990s the number of non-citizens grew by some 680,000 a year. As a share of the total population, non-citizens increased from 3.1 percent in 1980 to 4.7 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 2000. Data collected by the Census Bureau since 2000 shows that growth in the number of non-citizens has continued to increase. In March of 2005 there were 21.7 million non-citizens in the country and they comprised 7.4 percent of the total population.4 Again, this growth reflects continued high rates of new immigration.
Non-citizens over Age 18. For purposes of reapportionment, the Census counts all persons, including those too young to vote. However, in terms of the number of voters per district or per state, the share of the voting-age population that is non-citizen is also relevant. In 2000, some 7.6 percent of the nation's adult population (18 and over) were non-citizen, higher than the 6.6 percent of the total population. In 2005, of the over-18 population, 8.7 percent are not citizens. Most immigrants come as adults, and all children born to immigrants in the United States (even those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically citizens, thus non-citizens comprise a larger share of the 18-and-over population than of the total population. In other words, there are relatively few immigrant children because most children in immigrant families were born here. This means that vote counts in high immigration states and districts will be even lower than one might suspect given the share of the total population that is non-citizen.
Impact On Congressional Apportionment
Non-citizens Have Large Impact. Immigration has a significant effect on the distribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives for three reasons. First, seats are apportioned based on each state's total population relative to the rest of the country, including illegal aliens and other non-citizens. This, of course, is the issue at the center of Congresswomen Miller's proposal. Second, congress has chosen to allow in a large number of legal immigrants and to tolerate wide spread illegal immigration. After the 2000 Census, the average congressional district had roughly 650,000 people. Thus, the more than 18 million non-citizens in the 2000 Census were equal to nearly 29 congressional seats. The third reason is that non-citizens are not evenly distributed throughout the country. In 2000, half of all non-citizens lived in just three states and almost 70 percent live in just six states. States with a large non-citizen population will gain at the expense of states comprised mostly of citizens.
Impact of Non-Citizens on Apportionment. In a report entitled, "Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment," published by the Center for Immigration Studies in October of 2003, we calculated the impact of non-citizens on the distribution of seats in the House.5 Overall we found that the presence of non-citizens caused a total of nine seats to change hands. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each lost a seat that they had prior to the 2000 Census while Montana, Kentucky and Utah each failed to gain a seat they other wise would have gained, but for the presences non-citizens in other states. Of the nine seats redistributed by non-citizens, 6 went to California, while Texas, New York and Florida each gained a seat and New York retained a seat it otherwise would have lost. Analysis of this kind is very straightforward, involving a simple calculation of the apportionment of seats to states with non-citizens included and then without them. Other researchers have come to the same conclusion.6
Impact of Illegal Aliens. In our 2003 apportionment study we also tried to estimate the impact of illegal aliens by themselves. The former INS has estimated the size and state distribution of illegals who responded to the Census, and we used those figures to estimate their impact on the distribution of House seats. We found that of the nine states that lost seats due to non-citizens, four were the result of illegals. This makes perfect sense because 40 to 45 percent of non-citizens are illegal aliens. Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi each lost one seat in the House and Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have gained because of illegal aliens in other states.
Impact on Electoral College. Immigration and the resulting non-citizen population not only redistributes seats in the House, it has the same effect on presidential elections because the apportionment of the Electoral College is based on the same basic calculations as congressional delegations. Thus immigration policy and the resulting large non-citizen population it produces impacts the distribution of political influence both in Congress and in the Executive.
States That Lost Did Not Decline in Population. One common mistake is to think of the states that lost seats as losing population. It is very important to understand that the states that lost a seat due to the presence of non-citizens in other states are not declining in population. The population of the four states that lost seats due to illegals increased 1.6 million in the 1990s, and the population of the five states that lost a seat because of other non-citizens increased 2 million. However, immigration caused the population of other states to grow even faster.
States and Districts With Many Non-Citizens
Immigrant-induced Reapportionment. One way in which immigrant-induced reapportionment is different from reapportionment caused when natives relocate to other states is that immigration takes away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens so that new districts can be created in states with large numbers of non-citizens. Again, I think this is the central concern behind Congresswoman Miller proposal. In the 9 states that lost a seat because of the presences of non-citizens, only 1 in 50 residents was not a U.S. citizens in 2000. In contrast, one in seven residents is a non-citizen in California, which picked up six of the nine seats redistributed by non-citizens. And 1 in 10 residents is a non-citizen in New York, Texas and Florida.
As a result, it often takes relatively few votes to win a district in some high immigration states. Our study of reapportionment found that in 2002, it took 101,000 votes to win the typical House race in the nine states that lost a seat because of non-citizens; in contrast it took only 68,000 votes to win the average district in California, and 67,000 to win the average district in Texas, and just 81,000 votes to win the typical district in New York. The political distortions created by non-citizens are even more pronounced in some districts. For example, 43 percent of the population in California's immigrant-heavy 31st district are not U.S. citizens, and in the 34th district, its 38 percent. In Florida's 21st district 28 percent of the population are not American citizens; in New York's 12th district it's 23 percent; and in Texas' 29th district its 22 percent.7 The large number of non-citizens would seem to create real tension with the principle of "one man one vote" because it now takes so few votes to win a congressional seat in many high immigration states. As already indicated, it takes about 100,000 voters to win the typical congressional race in the states that lost a seat due to the non-citizens. In contrast, it took less than 33,000 votes to win the 34rd district in California and only 34,000 to win the 31st district in 2002. The 12th district of New York took only 42,000 votes to win. Allowing in enormous numbers of immigrants has created a situation in which the votes of American citizens living in low-immigration states and districts count much less than that the votes of citizens living in high immigration districts.
Practical Issues to Consider
Can Non-citizens Be Excluded? Putting aside the legal and constitutional issues surrounding non-citizens and apportionment, which I will leave to others, there are practical issues to consider. For one thing, if we are to exclude non-citizens it would require Congress to instruct the Census Bureau to significantly change the way the Census itself is administered. The citizenship question is part of the Census "long form" that is received by only one-sixth of the population. This question would have to move to the short form in order to exclude non-citizens. There is also the question of how accurate respondents fill out the Census. Accuracy may become a much larger issue if persons are going to be excluded from apportionment counts based on their answers, which is not the case now. It should be noted that while there is some evidence that immigrants sometimes say they are citizens when in fact they are not, the overall number of citizens seems to be relatively accurate in the Census, though for some groups of immigrants this is less true.
Can Illegal Aliens Be Excluded? Excluding only illegal aliens from apportionment while perhaps politically popular and appealing from a fairness point of view, would be dramatically more difficult than excluding all non-citizens. The INS and Census Bureau and other outside researchers estimate the number of illegal aliens by comparing the demographic characteristics of those responding to the Census with administrative data on legal admissions. While such methods produce reasonably accurate estimates of the illegal population overall, they do not definitively identify individual illegal aliens in the Census. Any effort to pick out specific individuals are only highly educated guesses, that while useful to demographers and even policy makers, would almost certainly not pass constitutional muster. It is possible to simply ask all respondents if they are illegal aliens. While some may answer honestly, it seems certain that many if not most illegals would probably not identify themselves as such.
Encouraging Naturalization Is Helpful, But No Solution. One potential solution to the problem of citizens losing representation is to encourage those who are eligible for citizenship to naturalize. Of course, such efforts would not change the fact that low immigration states are losing political power. Moreover, even the most optimistic assumption about the impact of efforts to increase citizenship would still leave an enormous number of non-citizens. Illegal aliens are not eligible for citizenship, nor are persons on long-term temporary visa. As long as one million or more new legal immigrants are allowed to enter each year, the non-citizen population will continue to be very large. One study found that if every single eligible immigrant naturalized, there would still be roughly 15 million non-citizens (illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and long-term visitors) in 2002.8 As long as the level of legal and illegal immigration remain at record levels, American citizens in low immigration areas and states will continue to lose representation, even if naturalization rates increased dramatically.
Non-citizen and Apportionment Is Part of The Immigration Debate
It should be obvious that a large non-citizen population is an unavoidable product of large scale legal immigration (both permanent and temporary) and widespread toleration of illegal immigration. Because family relationships and existing cultural ties determine where immigrants go, changes in immigrant settlement pattern happen only slowly. Thus non-citizens will continue to cause a significant redistribution of seats in the House. While outside our discussion here, non-citizens have the same impact at the state and local level as well.
Rather than focus on just the impact of non-citizens on apportionment, it would make more sense to incorporate this issue into the overall immigration debate. Thus when thinking about a guestworker program, for example, advocates of allowing illegals to stay need to understand that this decision will have a significant impact on apportionment in 2010. This fact by itself does not mean that a guestworker program is necessarily a bad or good idea. But it does mean that a guestworker program has consequences that can only be seen with if we look beyond immigrants simply as workers. Whatever one may think of the overall costs and benefits of immigration, it should be obvious that our decisions about immigration need to take account of many issues, including, apportionment and political representation.
End Notes
1This is based on my analysis of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey done by the Census Bureau in March of 2005, and subsequent Current Population Surveys done with out the March supplement.
2There is some evidence that Hispanic immigrants in particular tend to overstate there citizenship. It is also important to note that although the number of non-citizens in the Census was 18.6, the number in the population used for apportionment was closer to 18.5 million. This is because the population of the District of Columbia and persons overseas are not included in apportionment calculations.
3The INS report estimating 7 million illegals in 2000 with an annual increase of about 500,000 can be found at www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf . The Census Bureau estimate of 8 million illegals in 2000 report can be found at www.census.gov/dmd/www/ReportRec2.htm (Appendix A of Report 1 contains the estimates).
4This is based my analysis of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey done by the Census Bureau in March of 2005.
5Those wanting a more detailed explanation of our methodology should read the entire report which can be found at www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2003/back1403.html .
6These results are the same as those obtained by Marta Tienda in her 2002 article in Demography entitled "Demography and the Social Contract," pages 587-616.
7These figures come from the Census Bureau's American Community survey collected in 2002. The results can be found at www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/index.htm .
8A report from the Urban Institute found that in 2002 there were an estimated 11 naturalized citizens and 8 million additional individuals who were eligible to naturalized out of the total foreign born population estimated by the Institute at 34 million. The entire report can be found at www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310847_trends_in_naturalization.pdf .
MORE INFO TO UNDERSTAND!
Most Americans know that their representation in the U.S.
House of Representatives is based on proportional representation as
determined by the decennial Census. And, many Americans are aware that
the Census takers try to count everybody residing in the country. But,
most Americans do not make the connection that illegal immigrants and
other foreigners who are not legal permanent residents are part of the
calculation for the apportionment of Congressional representatives. If
the population of illegal aliens and other long-term foreign residents
were inconsequential, this would not be an important issue. However,
with 18.5 million more persons counted in the 2000 Census than the
number of U.S. citizens, this is a valid major concern.
Because illegal aliens should not even be in the country,
and other nonimmigrants such as foreign students and guest workers are
here only temporarily, it makes no sense to distribute Congressional
seats as if these foreign nationals deserved representation the same as
American citizens.
The U.S. population that logically should be enumerated
includes U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (immigrants). As
only the former may vote in federal elections, the apportionment of
seats in Congress should be done on the basis of the number of citizens
in each state. 1 Apportionment of federal funds should be based on the number of citizens and legal residents of each state.
Some federal funding programs provide compensation to the
states based on mandated expenditures for foreign residents, i.e.,
emergency medical care, incarceration, English language learning. The
number and identity of these non-citizen users of these services is
appropriately collected by the service provider and should be provided
to the federal government as a condition precedent to receiving any
distribution of federal funds.
On the basis of the current Census questionnaire, however,
there is no way to determine if a foreign resident is legally or
illegally in the country. But the Census does ask whether persons are
U.S. citizens. It could also ask persons who are not U.S. citizens if
they are legal permanent residents ("green card" holders).
As a result of the current incoherent system of allocating
seats based on all persons counted in the Census, some Member of
Congress represent many fewer U.S. citizens and permanent residents than
others. Similarly, some states that have large numbers of illegal
aliens and other non-citizens gain the advantage of additional
representation in Congress at the expense of states that have fewer
illegal aliens and non-citizens, since the total number in the House of
Representatives is currently fixed by law at 435 members.
Besides the distortions in apportionment of representation
among the states and in the number of citizens represented by each
representative, the Census also causes distortions when it is used to
allocate federal public assistance funds among the states because
nonimmigrants, including illegal aliens, are not entitled to public
welfare.
If apportionment based on U.S. citizenship had been in force
following the 2000 Census, the distribution of seats in the House of
Representatives would have been as shown in the chart below, which also
shows the actual apportionment and the difference (states not listed
would have no change).
| State | Reallocation | Current | Change | ||
| California | 47 | 53 | -6 | ||
| Florida | 24 | 25 | -1 | ||
| Indiana | 10 | 9 | 1 | ||
| Kentucky | 7 | 6 | 1 | ||
| Michigan | 16 | 15 | 1 | ||
| Mississippi | 5 | 4 | 1 | ||
| New York | 28 | 29 | -1 | ||
| Ohio | 19 | 18 | 1 | ||
| Oklahoma | 6 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 20 | 19 | 1 | ||
| South Carolina | 7 | 6 | 1 | ||
| Texas | 31 | 32 | -1 | ||
| Wisconsin | 9 | 8 | 1 |
As may be seen from the reallocation
of seats based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the states with the
largest illegal and resident nonimmigrant populations currently gain
influence in the law making process as a result of the current
distribution of congressional seats. The perverse effect of this current
apportionment process is that it encourages states to accommodate the
presence of persons who constitute a major fiscal burden on their
citizenry.
If the seats in the House of Representative were
reapportioned based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the big loser
of seats would be California, losing 6 seats. Three other states with
large immigrant populations both legal and illegal would also lose one
seat each, i.e., Texas, New York and Florida. The winners in this
reallocation of congressional representation would be the residents of
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina and Wisconsin. Those states each would gain one
additional representative.
The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers
Introduction
A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.The Number of Illegal Immigrants in the US
Estimating the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on the U.S. taxpayer depends on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien population. FAIR defines “illegal alien” as anyone who entered the United States without authorization and anyone who unlawfully remains once his/her authorization has expired. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has no central database containing information on the citizenship status of everyone lawfully present in the United States. The overall problem of estimating the illegal alien population is further complicated by the fact that the majority of available sources on immigration status rely on self-reported data. Given that illegal aliens have a motive to lie about their immigration status, in order to avoid discovery, the accuracy of these statistics is dubious, at best. All of the foregoing issues make it very difficult to assess the current illegal alien population of the United States.However, FAIR now estimates that there are approximately 12.5 million illegal alien residents. This number uses FAIR’s previous estimates but adjusts for suspected changes in levels of unlawful migration, based on information available from the Department of Homeland Security, data available from other federal and state government agencies, and other research studies completed by reliable think tanks, universities, and other research organizations.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States
At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels.Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens
Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens
Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration
Federal
The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.Federal Spending
The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.
Federal Taxes
Taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. However, illegal alien apologists frequently cite the allegedly large tax payments made by illegal aliens as a justification for their unlawful presence, and as a basis for offering them permanent legal status through a new amnesty, similar to the one enacted in 1986. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns. Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits.
As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.
Total Federal Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration
State and Local
Even though the costs of illegal immigration borne by taxpayers at the federal level are staggering, they only pale in comparison to the fiscal burden shouldered by taxpayers at the state level. Most government taxes and fees remitted to government by Americans are paid in forms other than income taxes submitted to the IRS on April 15th. There are city and state income taxes, fuel surcharges, sales and property taxes, etc…. States and localities also bear the main burden for costs associated with public education, city and county infrastructure, and local courts and jails.A further complication is the fact that, while barred from many federal benefits, state laws allow illegal aliens to access many state-funded social welfare programs. Because so little data is collected on the immigration status of individuals collecting benefits, it is difficult to determine the rate at which illegal aliens use welfare programs. However, based on the average income of illegal alien households, it appears they use these programs at a rate higher than lawfully present aliens or citizens.
State and Local Spending
The combined total of state and local government general expenditures on illegal aliens is $18,571,428,571 billion. The services referenced in this section are supported directly by the payment of city and state taxes and related fees. At the state level, examples of general expenditures would be the costs of general governance, fire departments, garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance, etc. The state, county or municipality — or even a special taxing district in some situations — may provide some of these services. In most cases, localities offer more services than the state. By FAIR’s estimate, there is approximately a 65 percent to 35 percent cost share between local and state governments.The estimate of general expenditure services received by illegal alien households, beyond the specific outlays mentioned in the sections above, excludes capital expenditures and debt servicing. The calculation for each state is based on the state’s annual operating budget, reduced by the amount covered by the federal government. That expenditure is then reduced further based on the relative size of the estimated population of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born minor children. As noted in our population estimate, this means states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc., with larger illegal alien cohorts, will bear larger shares of these costs.
State and Local Taxes Collected
Offsetting the fiscal costs of the illegal alien population
are the taxes collected from them at the state and local level. Many
proponents of illegal immigration argue that the taxes paid to the
states render illegal aliens a net boon to state and local economies.
However, this is a spurious argument. Evidence shows that the tax
payments made by illegal aliens fail to cover the costs of the many
services they consume.
Illegal aliens are not typical taxpayers. First, as
previously noted in this study, the large percentage of illegal aliens
who work in the underground economy frequently avoid paying any income
tax at all. (Many actually receive a net cash profit through refundable
tax credit programs.) Second, and also previously noted, the average
earnings of illegal alien households are considerably lower than both
legal aliens and native-born workers.
Total State and Local Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration
Combined Federal State Cost Tables
Counting illegal aliens when dividing up congressional seats and electoral college votes is likely to strip some red states of representation and give blue states with large foreign populations more representation.
During an exclusive interview on SiriusXM Patriot Channel’s Breitbart News Saturday, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) revealed that red states like Alabama are set to lose congressional seats should illegal aliens — rather than only American citizens — continue to be counted in congressional apportionment.Currently, congressional seats and electoral college votes are divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California and Florida to receive 20 additional congressional seats and electoral college votes, according to Brooks, as American citizens’ votes are diluted in the process.
Alabama is just one example of a red state with a small illegal alien population that is set to lose a congressional seat if illegal aliens keep being counted in the apportionment:
Going forward into 2020, the odds are, that Census will result in Alabama losing a congressional seat and an electoral college vote for the president of the United States if illegal aliens are counted. [Emphasis added]Listen to the full interview here:
So that will definitely be to the detriment to the people of the state of Alabama. It will deny our equal voting rights … under the 14th Amendment. [Emphasis added]
And so I have, as a plaintiff … filed a lawsuit in federal court to not allow the counting of illegal aliens in the Census for the purpose of distributing electoral college votes and congressional seats. Hopefully, the federal court will realize the wisdom of what we say and afford equal protection to American citizens and time will tell how it plays out. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News has reported, the counting of only American citizens to divide up congressional districts and electoral college votes would shift power away from the affluent, metropolitan coastal cities of the U.S. and towards middle America.
If congressional districts were set by the number of citizens, the overall average population needed per congressional seat could decrease to about 670,000 citizens per district. This would give a stronger advantage for states with small illegal alien populations to gain and keep their current number of congressional seats.
For instance, if by counting citizens, a state like Ohio, with few illegal aliens, could possibly gain a congressional seat, increasing the state’s total number of representatives to 17. Current projections suggest Ohio will lose a congressional seat.Maybe this explains why Democrats are so much more concerned about illegals than they are about their own constituents!Mo Brooks: The 15M Illegal Aliens in U.S. Give Blue States 20 Congressional Seats https://t.co/rjSxvMOQZj via @BreitbartNews
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 10, 2018
In West Virginia, which is also slated to lose a congressional seat, the state could keep their three districts if the redistricting is counted by citizens. Indiana, as well, — with less than 180,000 noncitizen residents — would potentially increase its congressional seats from nine to ten if apportionment is based on the number of citizens in the state.
Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import roughly 15 million new foreign born voters. Between seven and eight million of those foreign born voters will arrive in the U.S. through chain migration.
So NOW YOU KNOW !
WHAT WILL YOU DO ABOUT IT ??
WHAT WILL YOU DO ABOUT IT ??
