Hispanics -Any Reaction To GOP Platform Saying That Undocumented Residents Count Less Than Slaves?

[Median Democrat]

Is there any broad reaction amoung Hispanic voters to the GOP's 2008 Platform limiting census to legal residents? Also, for purposes of determining congressional seats, doesn't this platform hurt border states who must provide services to such undocumented residents? In other words, could Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas lose congressional seats and clout if undocumented residents are not counted. This reminds me of the pre-civil war debate on whether to count slaves in the census since they can't vote. A compromise was reached in 1787 to count slaves as 3/5 of a person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

/snip

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but is still generally credited with giving the pro-slavery forces disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War. For example, in the period prior to 1850, southerners held the Presidency for 50 of 62 years, and 18 of the 31 Supreme Court Justices were southerners despite the north having nearly twice the population by 1850.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

/snip

However, if the GOP has its way, undocumented residents will count even less than slaves, because they won't be counted at all:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5geMzd-MqiH0sfhOqPTYV1b5a-9LwD92URSTO0

/snip

WASHINGTON (AP) — The 2008 Republican platform, in language that is hostile to illegal immigrants, says the makeup of Congress should be determined by counting only those legally residing in the United States in the next census.

"The integrity of the 2010 census, proportioning congressional representation among the states, must be preserved," says the platform language, which is a reinterpretation of the Constitution that could affect how congressional seats are apportioned. "The census," it says, "should count every person legally abiding in the United States in an actual enumeration."

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1868, says representatives to the U.S. House "should be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

"Our mandate is to count all residents regardless of legal status," said Mark Tolbert, a spokesman for the Census Bureau.

/snip

[thunder rising]

1. There could be a special illegal alien category that would not contribute to the overall political

structure. But then that would cause problems on its own. It's actually better if they don't exist.

How do you measure turnout percentages? Representation?

I agree, they do not officially exist.

[kiva]

2. So...anyone who belives that the census should count

non-citizens is repeating the meme of the slaveholders? Hmmm, probably won't be a popular argument here.

[Median Democrat]

3. Why not? For example, the States With Non-Citizens Have to Provide Services

How is it that in 1787 even slaves who could not vote were counted as 3/5 of a person while non-citizens are not counted at all? If a non-citizen goes to an emergency room, can the ER refuse services? The non-citizens contribute to the economy, as well as use services. They should be counted, and they currently are under the law.

[kiva]

4. But your argument is economic, not political.

The southern states who pushed for this in the Constitution weren't under any sort of federal mandate to care for and educate slaves, they (slaveholders) were just trying to increase their political power. This "compromise" implicitly encouraged slavery by ensuring that states with a high slave population, such as South Carolina, got a larger representation in Congress. I disagree with non-funded mandates, but don't agree that states with large non-citizen populations should automatically be allowed more political representation.

[Median Democrat]

5. So, You Want Taxation Without Representation?

The federal government derives revenues from the labor of non-citizens. Indeed, the agriculture industry in many states depends on immigrant labor. I don't think there is this clean dichotomy between economic and political representation. Indeed, arguably, the revolution began as an economic movement under the slogan "no taxation without representation," which was the primary issue raised by the early colonists. Yet, your argument would endorse the Federal Government taxing the industries that heavily depend on immigrant labor, yet not allocate political power, which translates to the distribution of economic benefits, based on the immigrant population.

Historically, economic and politics were inextricably interlinked.

[kiva]

7. This assumes that political representation equates to

economic representation of the general population, which isn't a proven theory. Agribusiness has definitely been profiting from the labor of non-citizens for decades, and they have a great deal of power in their respective states. If we choose to increase the representation of these border states based on a population that cannot vote, all we are doing is giving more power to these business interests (via the Congress). Since non-citizens can't vote their economic interests, it would do little to benefit them and more to benefit special interests.

[Median Democrat]

8. What About Children? This response is internally inconsistent

Corporations also cannot vote, yet you concede their power, influence and impact. Immigrants also cannot vote, yet they have an impact, and more importantly they have a direct impact on states with large immigrant populations, thus the census should count immigrants, and States should be represented accordingly. By your definition, we should exclude children from the census, because they can't vote, as well. Yet, we count children for purposes of congressional seats despite their lack of voting power.

[DemoRabbit]

6. All in response to census findings

as my (hispanic-american) husband says... they don't like the recent census report predicting "they are done" - meaning the reign of white people is on the rapid decline.

I guarantee they are at least in part, responding to the Census predictions...
A recent U.S. Census Bureau report projects the nation will become much more diverse by midcentury, with minorities forecast to become the majority population by 2042. Historically, the Census Bureau has been pretty accurate in it's predictions.

The old white guys are afraid.