foxnews.com
Lawsuit Challenges Inclusion of Illegal Immigrants in Census Apportionment
Four states' attorneys general are suing the U.S. Census Bureau, claiming the inclusion of illegal immigrants in the 2020 census apportionment unconstitutionally shifted congressional seats and electoral votes, with Ohio and West Virginia losing one each, while Texas gained one and California retained one. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
- What immediate consequences resulted from including illegal immigrants in the 2020 census apportionment, and how does this impact political representation?
- The attorneys general of four states are suing the U.S. Census Bureau, alleging that the inclusion of illegal immigrants in the 2020 census apportionment led to the loss of congressional seats and electoral votes for their states. Ohio and West Virginia each allegedly lost one seat and vote, while Texas gained one and California retained one it otherwise would have lost. This lawsuit claims the practice is unlawful and violates constitutional principles.
- What are the potential long-term implications of this lawsuit's success or failure on future census data collection and the distribution of political power among states?
- This legal challenge could significantly impact future census data and political representation. A ruling against the current method could necessitate a re-evaluation of apportionment, potentially shifting political power among states and altering the balance of representation in Congress and the Electoral College. The outcome will likely influence future immigration debates and policies concerning census methodology.
- How does the lawsuit's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II, Section 1, challenge the Census Bureau's "Residence Rule," and what is the historical context for this challenge?
- The lawsuit argues that counting illegal immigrants for apportionment violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal representation principle and Article II, Section 1, by unconstitutionally distributing electoral votes. It cites the Census Bureau's "Residence Rule," which counts foreign nationals regardless of legal status, and contends this contravenes the historical understanding of 'persons in each State' as citizens and lawful permanent residents. The plaintiffs claim this redistribution of power is due to the large and concentrated illegal immigrant population in certain states.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately frame the issue as a lawsuit against the inclusion of undocumented immigrants, setting a negative tone and potentially influencing reader perception before presenting a balanced view of the arguments. The repeated emphasis on the potential loss of congressional seats for certain states further reinforces this framing.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "illegal immigrants," "illegal aliens," and "harbored by other states." These terms carry negative connotations and could influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives such as "undocumented immigrants" or "foreign-born residents" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the lawsuit and the arguments of the attorneys general, giving less weight to counterarguments or perspectives from those who support the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the census. This omission could lead to a biased understanding of the issue. The article also doesn't delve into the potential legal precedents or historical context surrounding the use of census data for apportionment.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between including or excluding undocumented immigrants in the census count, without exploring the potential for alternative solutions or more nuanced approaches.
Sustainable Development Goals
The lawsuit claims that including undocumented immigrants in the apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes disproportionately benefits states with larger undocumented immigrant populations, thus exacerbating existing inequalities in political representation among states. This action could potentially undermine efforts to achieve equitable representation and distribution of resources across states.