After hearing final oral\narguments this week, the Supreme Court is set to determine if the Trump\nadministration can exclude illegal aliens from the decennial Census\nreapportionment of House seats\u2014an initiative that seeks to ensure that American\ncitizens and legal immigrants are not denied representation and federal\nfunding. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mainstream media outlets have overwhelmingly reported that several justices appeared \u2018skeptical<\/a>\u2019, \u2018wary<\/a>\u2019, and \u2018doubtful<\/a>\u2019 of the president\u2019s proposition, suggesting that the move faces a number of technical procedure hurdles and that it would be difficult to confidently calculate the figures demanded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is unclear how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule, but given the Court\u2019s conservative majority and the Trump administration\u2019s success with immigration cases at the high court\u2014including its travel ban<\/a>\u2014it is not unfounded to think it could rule in favor of the administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In July<\/a>, President Trump issued an executive order that mandated the Department of Commerce to exclude illegal aliens from its court for apportionment, but the move faced immediate blowback from open borders advocacy groups, activist judges, and the mainstream media. These groups made the argument that federal funding and political representation for states should be calculated based on all <\/em>individuals residing in the state\u2014not just lawfully present individuals.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n But for decades, the\nconstitutionally mandated Census has included illegal aliens for apportionment,\nwhich has resulted in American citizens and legal immigrants being denied\nrepresentation and funding. What needs\nto be determined is whether the Constitution requires that unlawful residents\nbe awarded representation in Congress and federal funding. The decennial Census determines\neach state\u2019s representation in Congress, its number of electoral votes, and its\nallocation of federal funds<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a state has a larger illegal alien population, it will generally receive more federal funding and political representation. States with large illegal alien populations<\/a>\u2014such as New York and California\u2014are those that encourage illegal immigration through sanctuary policies or generous benefits such as California\u2019s multimillion-dollar COVID-19 financial relief fund<\/a> for illegal aliens. In turn, such states typically receive more funding and representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court\u2019s ruling will have\nsignificant ramifications. If it rules against the administration, it is likely\nstates will continue to encourage illegal immigration to grow their overall\nstate population. Should it uphold the administration\u2019s order, there will be a\nshift in political representation and federal funding benefiting states with\nfewer illegal aliens. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, the administration\u2019s arguments before\nthe Supreme Court brought much needed awareness to the issue and revealed that\nPresident Trump is taking long overdue action to safeguard\nAmerican and legal immigrant interests and their constitutional rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After hearing final oral arguments this week, the Supreme Court is set to determine if the Trump administration can exclude illegal aliens from the decennial Census reapportionment of House seats\u2014an initiative that seeks to ensure that American citizens and legal immigrants are not denied representation and federal funding. Mainstream media outlets have overwhelmingly reported that<\/p>\n