An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

David Vitter: Not Always Better Late than Never

Senator David Vitter, (R – La) along with his somewhat questionable and controversial activities in the past, also comes up with some good ideas. He demonstrated this talent once again recently when he suggested that maybe the next census should be sure that it’s only counting legal citizens. As Ed Morrissey points out, the consequences of screwing this up can be serious indeed.

Each seat represents 690,000 American residents at the moment, although in 2000 it would have been closer to 640,000, as population grew about 8% since the last census. Would California’s illegals have amounted to 3.2 million? That would be the upper reaches of estimates for illegal immigrants in the Golden State, but probably not outside the realm of possibility. If they all got counted, it could have skewed the allocation of seats in the House as much as Vitter claims.

Even leaving aside the specifics of which state gets counted for how many residents, the general principle of this should be enough. It’s good to know how many people are in the country, and that includes illegals. But one of the most critical aspects of the census data is the fact that it is used to determine how many representatives are allocated to the House. Illegal residents can not vote, are not entitled to all the same rights and privileges of citizens, and should – by definition – not count toward our representation, even in states where it might not skew the outcome in favor of any particular party or interest group.

However, there is one significant problem with Vitter’s move which Ed doesn’t touch on in his article. We’ve already printed tens or hundreds of millions of the forms, with roughly 15 million more currently being printed every day. We’re fast approaching the time when they will all have to be correlated and mailed out. Starting over now would not only throw off the timing, but would cost a lot of money.

So if we’re to object to Vitter’s amendment on any grounds at all, it would be, “Good idea, but how did you not manage to think of this last year?” Surely he is aware of this, and it just adds a bit of a stench to the proceedings as if he’s just trying to shut the census process down at this point, which is simply out of the question. It’s a valid point he raises, however, and we should definitely address this before the 2020 head count.

  • DLS
    "maybe the next census should be sure that it’s only counting legal citizens"

    WHAT??? To Cheating Dems, that is scandalous -- outrageous! It's RACIST!

    Dems cannot stand to lose their city electoral advantage, federal funding advantage, Blue Nation state fund-receiving and yes, Congressional apprortionment (and redistricting) (as well as electoral) advantage.

    I still smell ACORN and other rats at "work" in next year's Census, as well as games (even if not by that name) played with statistical sampling and other numerical toys. (Don't neglect junk lawsuits, either!)

    We know what the trends are (largely, at Blue Nation's expense). Consider -- with the last Census data, and the centers of population since World War II, I worked out the approximate location for the center of population (mean center) in the year 2100, a likely place someday to relocate the federal capital from Washington (not that we are likely to see it happen, but supposing we did, the future population center is a good choice). Guess where it would be? It would be in nice, hearty Red Nation land -- Oklahoma City.


    http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2005/summer/art...

    http://electionlawblog.org/archives/eds-2007.pdf

    [Map on last page]

    http://www.electiondataservices.com/images/File...


    [Mean population center, etc.]

    http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/cntpop2k.html


    Your and Vitter's concern is long-standing.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...
  • DLS
    Jazz -- regarding Oklahoma City (the logical place to relocate the federal capital to plan for the future, and put it at the future mean population center, in 2100 -- rather than in Kansas City-Independence, or Omaha, or in Kansas at the geo center of the contiguous 48 or near Salina or Wichita): Not only is OKC near the approximate US mean center of population in the future (as we continue migrating to the south and west), but it happens to lie at the boundary of the eastern (humid) and western (arid) USA as well, the 98th meridian. See the dashed line in the map below. (The 100th meridian is better known, but the 98th was recognized by people like Webb ages ago as the better boundary meridian. If we chose one day to use the US National Grid to redefine regions, states, or zones or districts, we'd be using the 96th.)


    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zzl_dczrSAw/SdlfOdlb_...

    http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/webb/webb4.jpg

    http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/webb/webb6.jpg

    http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/webb/webb9.jpg


    http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/outreach/gps/UTM_Zo...

    http://edc2.usgs.gov/pubslists/factsheets/fs077...

    http://www.fgdc.gov/usng/articles-reports/20050...
  • ModDem72
    There some big assumptions on numbers going on here, and assumptions on the number of illegals being counted in the first place. Not many illegals respond to government letters or government knocks on the door. And to fix this, Vitters wants "illegal immigrants list their status" ... yeah, I'm sure that will happen. They will just check the box that says "I'm illegal." And what's the punishment for not listing?

    While this amendment is more of a political stunt than anything substantive, I would support some measures to properly address legal status in census bureau data. Perhaps it could be combined with proposals to address the undercounting problems that have historically occurred (depending on how many have occur this time around). - http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1167T

    So, does that mean the Oklahoma City national capital would have to lose its senators, as well as House voting rights?
  • DLS
    I view "undercounting" with only somewhat less contempt than the bogus lib 'n' Dem whining about "disenfranchisement." (No doubt that word will be abused again in the context of "undercounting" next year, somehow.) Errors are inevitable, but nobody will trust complaints about it coming from those whose tradition has often included vote fraud (including ACORN, who had been slated to work on next year's Census, naturally, and I suspect still may do so in some way).

    * * *

    "So, does that mean the Oklahoma City national capital would have to lose its senators, as well as House voting rights?"

    A new federal district would replace the current one. Oklahoma (the rest of it) would remain a state and would retain its Congressional representation. (The existing district in the Northeast would be retroceded and representation thus secured there.)
  • ModDem72
    Ah, yes, because all lib complaints about census undercounting are bogus, but all conservative complaints about overcounting are legitimate. I guess its all in the source of the whine.

    Will conservatives stop overblowing the "ACORN working the census" nonsense? They were a partner (along with 30,000 organizations) to promote census participation. They were not going door-to-door or in anyway involved in data collection. Furthermore, they've been axed from the program thanks to their own corrupt behavior and mismanagement. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/acorn-and-the-...
  • DLS
    "Ah, yes, because ..."

    You can say that, or make up other things (like an attempt that fails to defend ACORN), but you write only about yourself, if at all, even if you mean to incorrectly describe what others are doing. (Why?)
  • ModDem72
    If incorrectly portrayed your attitudes, fine. I will gladly stand corrected.

    I was in no way attempting to defend ACORN. Indeed, I was critical of the org and I am glad to see them getting their just dismissal from the census bureau participation. I was giving the complaints you brought up (twice) about ACORN a little perspective, since you are implying it still impact the census process (but provide no evidence to support these claims). And what did I make up? I actually cited my statements.
  • DLS
    There is no conservative "overcounting" (or "wrongfully franchised") counterpart, much less to the extent that we do have a problem on the liberal side with voter registration fraud and election fraud. Any such charges are made up.

    As for ACORN, they are long-discredited, and why do I say that they're still likely to be involved in some way with the Census? The answer is that with the liberal activism related to the Census before, as with elections, it not only obviously is possible, but likely. Only if and when ACORN is proven to be excluded from the process may we feel complete relief. (And that doesn't preclude similar mischief by others; the Census will have to be carefully monitored and its results checked throughly. Games with the numbers are likely, given the "players." That's to be expected with the Census, given what is at stake -- returning to the original subject of Jazz's -- with apportionment and the clout and financial consequences of this.)
  • ModDem72
    I never said conservatives were overcounting, nor do I think that. I was referring to Vitter and his colleagues making charges of overcounting being a rampant problem in 2000 due to the inclusion of illegals. No one would dare claim that no illegals were counted in 2000, but to claim that millions were counted in California, giving the state disproportional representation, is nothing but speculation, as illegals historically have avoided participating in the census due to fear of deportation.

    The fact that we don't know the impact of illegals on the census is exactly why I support some process of verification of citizenship to ensure proper Congressional apportionment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC