It only\ntook 40 years, but a Federal district judge finally figured out that a state\nshould have legal standing to sue the Census Bureau for including illegal\naliens in the congressional district reapportionment process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judge R.\nDavid Proctor looked at the controversy and for the first time had the courage\nto consider the fact that small states like Alabama are seriously injured by\nallowing certain large states to attract illegal residents and then pack them\nin to try to increase political power. \nCalifornia has been doing this for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At first blush this seems a no brainer. Although the Constitution mandates that the Census count the number of \u201cwhole persons,\u201d that term has always had a flexible interpretation.\u00a0 \u201cPersons\u201d are, in some contexts, considered corporations, but the Census Bureau has never counted corporations. Similarly, the Census Bureau has excluded persons that are domiciled in foreign countries \u2013 that is people who just happen to be here on Census Day but don\u2019t actually live in the U.S. permanently. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nframers never considered the possibility that persons with no right to be in\nthe U.S. would demand the level of political representation that would actually\nshift the balance of power in the House of Representatives. And yet it has been going on \u2013 and getting\nworse \u2013 decade after decade. The Census\nBureau refuses to change the practice on its own. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nlitany of challenges began with a case called FAIR v. Klutznick<\/em>, way back in 1979 \u2013 indeed it was the first major\nundertaking of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) after its\nfounding earlier that year. In that\nfirst case, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the judge\nclaimed that citizens could not show vote and power dilution simply because of\nthe inclusion of illegal aliens for purposes of reapportionment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In a\nlater case in which FAIR also assisted, states themselves were also held to be\nwithout standing to challenge the flagrantly absurd practice of providing\npolitical representation to people with no right to be in the country (Ridge v. Verity, <\/em>1990). Again a district\njudge punted on the merits of the case by claiming the state could show no\nlegal interest in the outcome of a practice that could strip the state of one\nor more representatives in Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n All this\nis hard to swallow as we watch the ACLU and related organizations running into\nFederal court to file suit after suit challenging the Trump Administration on\nbehalf of plaintiffs with virtually no attachment to the society \u2013 often plaintiffs\nthat aren\u2019t even in the United States. And yet somehow the \u201cstanding doctrine\u201d\nis never a bar to the courthouse door. But\ntry to get a merits hearing on a fundamental issue facing American citizens \u2013\nif immigration policy is the core of the argument \u2013 then standing is sure to\nloom as an insurmountable obstacle to consideration of your case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nearly\n20 years have passed before another attempt was made: but credit the State of\nAlabama and the intrepid Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) with the effort \u2013\nalong with the Immigration Reform Law Institute as a supporting player. In the U.S. District Court for the Northern\nDistrict of Alabama, Judge Proctor considered the government\u2019s inevitable\nMotion to Dismiss for lack of standing and \u2013 for once \u2013 recognized that the\ninjury complained of is serious, corrosive of our democracy, and fundamentally\nunfair. His decision was issued on June\n5. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If the\nCensus Bureau wants to count illegal aliens for other purposes, say for the\npurposes of data collection and allocation of federal funds, that is perfectly\nfine. But not to allocate the federal\ndistricts in Congress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The case is State of Alabama v. Dept. of Commerce<\/em>, No. 2:18-cv-00772 (N.D. Ala.), and while it is a long way from achieving a final decision on the merits, it is a positive first step in very long path to success.\u00a0 When it comes to immigration policy, persistence is always a winner.\u00a0 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It only took 40 years, but a Federal district judge finally figured out that a state should have legal standing to sue the Census Bureau for including illegal aliens in the congressional district reapportionment process. Judge R. David Proctor looked at the controversy and for the first time had the courage to consider the fact<\/p>\n