Illegal Immigration effects House Representation/Presidential Elections

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Rick_Michael, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. #1
    Now I was, and still am concerned with voting integerity. It might not seem that way, but I am. Although this concerns me more, because it's a systematic ('LAWFUL') way of changing representation. Fraud can be changed when it's indentified...constitutional interpetation is a lot harder to change.

    It's not that I want one side to win over the other, but it closely resembles the souths desire to expand slavery to the west...in order to get further representation of the southern powers (via slaves).

    This will be even more of an issue in 2010, because of the next census. We're literally going to toss representation to richly populated illegal immigration areas. Am I the only one that sees the danger of giving the representation away this way?

    ps...In the long-term, I think this probably one of the most important issues of our time. It just seems benign.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    We're hearing now-a-days that dems have to win 15 seats or so to gain control of the House, but if we lived in senseable country that enforced it's own laws....would that number be much larger ie would they have to fight for more seats?

    Most likely:

    So where do these non-citizens reside?
    Do you think most of those states (whom lost seats) would have red or blue candiates winning?

    Is it appropriate to give representation to non-citizen? What sort of effect does this have on local democracies?

    What about presidential elections?
    This is what I think it will do


    http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1403coverage.html
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 1, 2006 IP
  2. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    9 seats handed over to illegal immigration representation . 'Ah, that's nothing....!?'

    Those other important issue mean more, don't they...because representation of Americans isn't important, is it!?

    Expect 2010 to garner another 8-15 seats to illegal immigrant representation. The vast majority of these areas will be 'blue'.

    And these people (^^^) are interested in valid elections!? *sarcasm* Might as well tell Republican leaders to cheat (on elections), because they're losing seats for retarded reasons, as it is. No, the democratic leaders aren't interested in real elections, they're just in it for themselves....and all those false blue people out there that rant and rave about fraudulent elections but are mute to this issue...thus hyprocritical and worthless.

    But that's what I would expect from those whom are only interested in their own bias. Protect your own stupid interests, and put your blinders on.

    End rant....


    http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/05/03/montana/a11050306_04.txt
    [​IMG]
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 1, 2006 IP
  3. mistermix

    mistermix Active Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #3
    Are we talking about illegal immigration or all immigration?

    I assume illegal immigrants don't vote but are you saying their(illegals) population statistics are used for representation figures for each state?
     
    mistermix, Nov 1, 2006 IP
  4. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Well, the stats on the above graph are kind of mixed...mostly for reference. But generally speaking, the census (which includes all citizens and non-citizens) makes up the representation in America. If you have hundreds of thousands of illegals, like California, you get extra representation, which is suctioned off from other states.

    Illegals can't vote, techinically, but they can influece where the representation exist. That's my deep concern over the long-term. Make sense? I could explain it further if you have any questions.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 1, 2006 IP
  5. mistermix

    mistermix Active Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #5
    Are you really sure that the census is taken by illegal immigrants?

    It will include non-citizens that are there legitimately but how can the government take a census of people it has no real record of?
     
    mistermix, Nov 1, 2006 IP
  6. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    Census are taken door to door in many circumstances, for quality control of the numbers. Status is not part of the questioning.

    I estimate 9 seats, but CIS estimates 12 seats.
    I believe neither non-citizens or illegal immigrants should have an effect on representation (if they have no right to vote). Supreme court decesions waver on that ie they support the status quo. Refer to Reynolds v. Sims.

    Although I don't think their intentions were meant to be used this way.


    Here's a good review.
    http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/CENSUS2000/prewitt-jones.html
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 1, 2006 IP
  7. Dead Corn

    Dead Corn Peon

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    I love illegal immigrants, especially the dark skinned, long black haired variety. They also are not allergic to work. And when the washing machine breaks down they will actually use their hands and wash the clothes, not at the river like women at the pump, no further away than the sink, but so their man doesn't have to work the following morning in the same dirty socks...

    It's called caring, gratitude and compassion.

    I wish there were more of them.

    I believe all these anti-immigration political commercials are going to backfire in the participants face one day... especially when they need that fuckin palm tree trimmed up all nice and neat.
     
    Dead Corn, Nov 6, 2006 IP
  8. Dead Corn

    Dead Corn Peon

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Yeah, those Africans were just a'jumping into those boats.
    Come on, Rick, there is NO connect here. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are here because they want to be here, and because we want them to be here.

    All the rest is bullshit
     
    Dead Corn, Nov 7, 2006 IP
  9. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    Slavery to the west would have expanded southern power through higher representation (one of the core factors of the civil war), while illegal immigration is expanding representation in mostly 'blue' states. My comparison wasn't about whether these people are free, it was the desire for blue states to gain/keep representation. That's not bullshit, that's entirely true.

    If there were no illegal immigrants in America, the margin in the house would be much higher for Democrats. Even more so, if we didn't give some amnesty already.

    As far as saying 'we' want them to be here, that's not a correct term or word for the situation. It would be 'some' people want them to be here. I want the law to be followed.

    Personally, I've never heard or probably will never hear anything but emotional desires/opinions about why they should stay or why they deserve special rights in front of others. The reasoning on pro-illegal immigration is rather weak. It's so weak, that nearly everyone in the world has immigration laws, and even the EU is starting to clamp down on this.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 7, 2006 IP
  10. Dead Corn

    Dead Corn Peon

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Well, yes, this is entirely true, but your emphasis should rather be socio-economic, not political. Democrats, Republicans, et al, would have absolutely no influence whatsoever to draw illegal aliens into the country - economics does that. Democrats cannot send illegal aliens into certain states demographically unable to support them, having no need for their labor. Hoping to expand an ideology of illegal aliens for the sake of voting power is an absurdity. There would be no illegal alien voter base, again, if there were no socio-economic factor to draw them.

    Slavery, and the expansion thereof, was quite abit different on many levels.
     
    Dead Corn, Nov 8, 2006 IP
  11. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    Well, you're a bit wrong. See they have things called sanctuary cities; where an illegal immigrant can even commit crime and not be reported to the federal authorities. Cities such as LA, are deeply engulfed because of this . The saturation levels are much higher in these sanctuary cities (huge percentages). The majority of illegal immigrants are actually live around a handful of these cities in California. All liberal areas.

    There's place in other states that do this as well, and they too have gained seats. Labor is a factor, and it will happen within other states. But representation will likely be grossly effected by original saturation, which is prodominately in liberal districts. Given the birth rate for the latin community, it's safe to assume that increases the numbers as well.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 8, 2006 IP
  12. MrMOJO

    MrMOJO Well-Known Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    817
    Likes Received:
    32
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #12
    it's estimated that over half of the United States will be of illegal alien descendants by 2043.

    ya, it's a HUGE problem.
     
    MrMOJO, Nov 8, 2006 IP
  13. Dead Corn

    Dead Corn Peon

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    Oh, they're Congressmen now. They get away with everthing now... I get it...

    Congressman Tomasino Folio (knows Fr. Whathefuck of St. Whodafuck out there in Wheredafuck) - he's an immigrant, so he is not held to the same standards as the rest of us. Is that it?

    I]Or[/I] is he more closely scrutinized?

    Fact is, the very gist of it all -there, one elbow propped up on the carpet floor in front of the TV, lies prejudice.

    Here's the truth, boyos, and you cannot lie about this to yourselves...

    You fuckin hippocrits...

    Here's what you cannot deny:

    If the United States were suddenly innundated with 5 ft 11 young, hard bodied Swedish babes with big beautiful smiles and big hard tits...

    You wouldn't be against immigration at all. Legal or otherwise.

    You fuckin coyotes.

    :)
     
    Dead Corn, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  14. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Why does this have to descend into racist suggestions?

    Would it make a difference if I said that even the expansion of immigration in the 20's should have been tempered for eastern europeans? Would that make me racist as well?

    You have no basis to call me a racist. I've noted many times before (in numerable threads) that I started off as a open border liberterian, and ventured this way due to the info I received over time. I live in the most diverse area in America, and my family has more races in it than most. Not that I had to prove this to you, but is that where it has to go? *shrug*

    I disagree with the initial policy of America on immigration, and I disagree with it now. Neither makes me racist.

    Please offer something more to this discussion other than insults.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 10, 2006 IP
  15. Dead Corn

    Dead Corn Peon

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Sorry, to have insulted you, I was just having alittle fun. But, yes, without question, prejudice is at the heart of this issue. And again, I state without reservation, if instead of dark skinned latino types pouring into this country, if instead of them there were nothing but young Brit Ekland's there would be no discussion of this at all.

    You speak of "sanctuary cities" you state this is based upon historical evidence. I say you ought to report this to the National Inquirer, it's their kind of news.

    If you feel actually insulted I would recommend you take a reality pill and sleep on it. The truth might make you feel better in the morning.
     
    Dead Corn, Nov 12, 2006 IP
  16. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    Just like there was no discussion of Irish or Italian immigrants. But those Irish people were really dark skinned, weren't they? Just because your mind believes it's all based on skin-color, doesn't make it true. I'm sure it's a part of it, but it doesn't make up a great deal of it.

    Again, as in the past, so in the present...people are being used to gain representation. That was the point of the thread.
     
    Rick_Michael, Nov 12, 2006 IP
  17. Dead Corn

    Dead Corn Peon

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    Haha... you just proved my point with your misdirected sarcasm. A bit of an irony there, no?

    But just for the record, as you well know there were lots of greaseballs really, guineas, dagos, wops... all the other PREJUDICIAL epithets you could hurl at them back then- wish to discount their contribution to the United States now?

    Now let's talk about the Irish... if you do not think there was prejudice against this oppressed people you have been living in Camp Candy Mountain.

    What you also ignore by ignornace or design is the lack of enforceable quotas at the time of these great immigrant families enhancing our nations borders and future. They were Mick's mostly... and became cops because no one else really wanted to.

    There's some folks picking our fields these days, and cleaning our tables. Again, if they all looked like a young Elke Sommer - you'd be eating out alot more I'll wager ;)

    Try your proaganda on someone else, Michael, your out in left field on this one.
     
    Dead Corn, Nov 12, 2006 IP
  18. avi8r

    avi8r Peon

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    Happy to oblige:

    In a recent hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, a representative of the National Academy of Science testified to the following:

    • In California alone (California has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide) it costs $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens. Conversely, the state receives only $1.6 billion in tax revenue from those illegal immigrants to offset those costs.
    • Each illegal alien results in a net cost to the taxpayers of $100,000 per illegal immigrant annually (I'll let you do the math).
    • 30 percent of public health patients in our country are illegal aliens. Hospitals in the southwest border counties of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California incur combined costs of $190 million each year in uncompensated emergency medical treatment of illegal aliens. In Arkansas, (not typically viewed as having a large Hispanic population) the state Medicaid program paid out $6.5 million for unreimbursed prenatal care for illegal aliens.
    • The estimated costs to provide an education to the children of illegal aliens nationwide is $11.2 billion.
    • 20 percent of the criminals in our prison system are illegal aliens. Lou Dobbs puts that number at 33 percent. Either way, the number is much higher than it should be.
    • Over 36 percent of illegal aliens are receiving welfare benefits.
    • Currently 12 percent of the 10.2 million residents of Los Angeles County are illegal aliens. The Center for Immigration Studies expects those costs to more than double if illegal aliens are granted amnesty due to the fact that if they indeed are granted amnesty, they will be eligible for additional programs for which they are currently ineligible.
    This is not a race issue, this is a socio-economic issue and a obey our laws issue--simple as that.
     
    avi8r, Nov 13, 2006 IP
  19. Dead Corn

    Dead Corn Peon

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    Hahahahahahaha!!! Well, like Twain said: "There's lies and then there's statistics. :)

    But seriously, You have GOT to be kidding me!!! One testimony at a Committee in Congress??? LOL. And you act as if, by invoking the name "Congress," it carries the weight of this august body. It does not. This is but one voice of many voices, testifying for what they believe. Nothing more. Give me the name of that particular committee, the dates of this particular session, and I will produce for you exactly opposite positions to the one you produced, and, lol, with their very own set of statistics.

    Come on, man, admit it. You would let an illegal alien Kim Bassinger hide out in your house for decades now wouldn't you.

    Fact you'd be a coyote now wouldn't you. You'd probably marry her now wouldn't you.
     
    Dead Corn, Nov 13, 2006 IP
  20. avi8r

    avi8r Peon

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    Since your first response is to demean rather than to give a well thought out reply, it appears to me that you have no interest in engaging in meaningful dialogue. Whether I take our body of our nation's lawmakers seriously or not, there exists enough independent evidence from the non-profit organizations that gather such statistics as those presented before the House to provide sufficient verification for any intelligent, thoughtful individual to assess where the truth actually exists. You can dismiss, ignore and even mock the statistics and the credible sources that provide them, but that does not change their validity. It only makes you look less credible for refusing to acknowlege their validity in the face of reason. They took the time to get their facts straight. You're the only cowboy shooting from the hip here it appears.

    Here is the information you requested re: which committee, date, etc.:
    http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju29329.000/hju29329_0f.htm
     
    avi8r, Nov 13, 2006 IP