SCOTUS Decision on Counting Illegals Highlights Betrayal of Government’s Purpose
“A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants and other noncitizens can be counted when states draw their legislative districts, shooting down a challenge by Texas residents who said their own voting power was being diluted,” The Washington Times reported.
Counted? Do we use 11 million or 30?
And unanimous? So much for “originalists” on the court. So naturally, the most “progressive” of the eight left standing – the one who views the Second Amendment as “obsolete,” was the one entrusted to explain founding intent.
“As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote,” Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies.”
As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If (illegal alien non-citizens are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes of citizens in states having relatively low populations of illegal aliens.
True, non-citizens and illegal aliens can’t (legally) vote yet, but subversives intent on the fundamental transformation of America that Obama threatened us with are working on that.
The question before the court was a distraction anyway, from government not just failing, but actively subverting the whole purpose behind its existence, and the whole reason “consent of the governed” has been presumed. The real question, and one that must be answered before the cultural terraforming is complete, is “Who should be admitted into the Republic in the first place?” The follow-up is “What criteria determine citizenship eligibility?”
Such talk is a surefire way to invite charges of being a hater, a racist, intolerant, a religious bigot and a xenophobe. Yet ignoring standards is a surefire way to invite destroyers into our midst, those who will simply leech and subvert, and those intent on more destructive goals.
How do you go about developing standards?
The Framers Ginsburg falsely name-dropped (in a pretty transparent ploy to claim legitimacy) already defined them. We know it as the preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Every power enumerated and delegated thereafter is required to facilitate those purposes and objectives, even if feet are rarely held to the fire any more. Any act that works against them is illegitimate, even if violations and usurpation have become a way of life. So the question for those enacting, administering, enforcing and adjudicating admissions standards is, or should be: Do they enhance domestic Tranquility, strengthen common defense, advance general Welfare, and enhance Liberty, including for our Posterity?
How, specifically? Anything that can be evaluated, and readily corrected if need be? We need more than weasel words.
Do we just forget that some, now represented though apportionment deemed A-OK by SCOTUS, ignored U.S. laws to come here, and continue to ignore it by staying, many thumbing their noses, getting bolder and more aggressive in their demands? Is it really in the interests of ourselves and our Posterity to take in tens or hundreds of thousands and more “refugees” from populations harboring an existential threat, especially when government assurances of “rigorous security screenings” are demonstrably hollow and fraudulent?
Do we just shut up about it and gradually die out, until such time as pretenses no longer need to be maintained?