Photo: insignificant via Flickr
There is a paradox to illegal immigration that is not discussed.
December 2010 reapportionment saw five states (AZ, FL, GA, TX, and WA), having among the largest population of illegal immigrants, gain 9 additional congressional representatives. The problem is that non-voters, such as illegal immigrants, are concentrated in states with the highest population growth.
We are increasingly giving more congressional representation to states with the lowest voter participation.
Is it in the best interest of illegal residents to be counted in redistricting/apportionment and not allowed to vote? Who benefits from the added congressional representation that illegal immigrants provide? This harkens back to when slaves were counted in apportionment to the benefit of the slave owner.
In a radio interview (WNPR, Dec. 15th) recently retired U.S. Senator Dodd (D-Connecticut) said he would change congressional apportionment/redistricting if given the opportunity, but did not specify how.
My book, Vote Thieves: Illegal Immigration, Redistricting, and Presidential Elections, argues for changing our basis of apportionment from total population to voters. Might this provide an impetus for true immigration reform if states such as Texas and California were to lose congressional representation because illegal immigrants are excluded from apportionment?
Our current method of apportionment creates an incentive for illegal immigration and polarizes our political system. Historically, it fostered segregation in the South, denied voting rights to women, and disenfranchised voters in the presidential election of 2000.
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.