Vote Rigging Via Mass Immigration

The famous Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz emphasized in his classic book, On War, that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” Similarly, one could argue – based on an analysis just released by the Center for Immigration Studies – that the policies of open borders and mass, unchecked immigration constitute electoral interference by other means. That’s because the mere presence of non-citizens, including illegal aliens, will affect both the representation Americans receive in Congress and each state’s electoral votes during a presidential election.

The numbers

The December 19 study, co-authored by Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler, predicts that, based on the upcoming 2020 national census, 26 seats in the House of Representatives will be reapportioned. Of these, 24 will be in states won by Donald Trump in 2016. This will be largely due to mass-immigration-fueled population growth in states where a majority of non-citizens settle, most of which are “blue” or Democratic-leaning.

Of states that went for Trump in 2016, only the “red” state of Texas and the “swing” state of Florida will receive four and three additional House seats respectively.

The study emphasizes that “but for the presence of all immigrants and their minor children in other states,” the following states – of which all but two were won by Trump – will each lose a seat in 2020: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Michigan and Pennsylvania would lose two each, and Ohio – three.

The counting of illegal aliens alone would mean that Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota each would lose a seat to California, Texas, and New York respectively.

Naturally, this will also impact the number of Electoral College votes each state receives, which is a sum of the number of senators (two per state) and House representatives. Thus, states with larger foreign-born populations would see their number of Electors increase.

Punishing states with smaller foreign-born populations

Texas’ gains notwithstanding, CIS’s calculations clearly show that one side will reap the overwhelming majority of the benefits of reapportionment driven by mass immigration and swelling foreign-born populations. Without a doubt this is one of the key reasons why the Democrats have been pushing – with the support or acquiescence of cheap labor corporatist Republicans – open borders and mass immigration. After all, during the 2018 midterm elections, almost 90 percent of House districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats.

Regardless of who benefits, however, counting illegal aliens – and perhaps all non-citizens in general – is problematic because it dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens. That is because it gives states that attract more non-citizens – including “sanctuary” jurisdictions – an unfair advantage over states with smaller foreign-born populations.

A persuasive case can be made that the Department of Commerce – which is responsible for conducting the census – can indeed exclude illegal aliens from the census population count (and that the Constitution did not mean for them to be included in the first place). Unfortunately, the DOC has so far refused to do so, for which it was sued by the state of Alabama and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL). Alabama certainly had a good reason to sue, for counting illegal aliens would deprive it of a congressional seat and an Electoral College vote. The bottom line is that states with small foreign-born/non-citizen populations, and in particular those with less illegal alien inhabitants, should not be punished by losing representation.    

About Author


Comments are closed.