The Providence (Rhode Island) Journal, October 29, 2003
The effects of immigration on the United States are often examined and debated from economic, national-security and cultural considerations, but new research from the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank, underscores a powerful political impact, as well.
The nearly 7 million illegal immigrants and 12 million other non-citizens who sent their Census forms back to the government in 2000 caused a significant redistribution of seats in the House of Representatives: a shift of seats from low-immigration states to high-immigration ones. This is because seats are apportioned to each state on the basis of total population, including illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.
In Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, authors Dudley Poston, Amanda Baumle and I found that Indiana, Michigan and Mississippi each lost a seat because of illegal aliens in the Census, while Montana failed to gain a seat it would otherwise have had.
The presence of all non-citizens, legal and illegal, redistributed a total of nine seats. In addition to the four states that lost seats because of the presence of illegal immigrants, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each lost a seat, while Kentucky and Utah failed to gain a seat they would otherwise have had.
One of the most troubling aspects of immigration-induced reapportionment is that it takes representation away from American citizens so that new districts can be created with large non-citizen populations.
In the states that lost a seat because of non-citizens, only 1 in 50 residents is not a U.S. citizen, compared with 1 in 7 residents in California, which picked up most of the seats. And in particular districts, the problem is much worse. In the immigrant-heavy 31st District of California, 43 percent of the population is composed of non-citizens, and in the 34th District, 38 percent are non-citizens. As a result, it took only 35,000 votes to win these districts in 2002, compared with 100,000 votes to win the typical congressional race in the states that lost a seat because of non-citizens.
Taking political representation away from American citizens so that districts can be created with large non-citizen populations creates a very real tension with the principle of "one man, one vote." And immigration not only redistributes seats in the House; it has the same effect on presidential elections, because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.
While some may be tempted to exclude illegals or even other non-citizens from apportionment, doing so is administratively impractical and would encounter fierce opposition from high-immigration states. It would also require years of litigation to determine its constitutionality.
Alternatively, enforcing immigration law and reducing legal immigration would significantly lessen the problem of U.S. citizens' losing political representation. Encouraging legal immigrants to naturalize would help alleviate the problem.
This, of course, would not address the problem of illegal immigrants, nor would it change the fact that low-immigration states are losing political power. But it would help reduce the size of the problem.
While trying to exclude illegals or other non-citizens once they have been counted in the Census is probably not possible, enforcing immigration law and reducing levels of legal immigration would significantly lessen the problem of U.S. citizens' losing political representation.
The country faces a choice: Either we continue to have record legal and illegal immigration, and continue to redistribute seats from states composed mostly of American citizens to high-immigration ones with large non-citizen populations, or we reduce immigration.