Letter: Sanctuary cities have profound impact on elections at all levels

Editor:

Why are California Democrats so desperately defending their sanctuary cities to the point where they have fast-tracked legislation that declares the entire state a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and guarantees tax-funded attorneys for those facing deportation?

Surely, illegal voting by immigrants could not account for Hillary Clinton’s 4.3 million-vote win over Donald Trump in that state.

I wondered: Could this have something to do with congressional representation?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that “representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state...” Legality of residency is not a factor.

The Apportionment Act of 1911 limits the House of Representatives to 435 seats. Those seats are apportioned to the states based on all of a state’s residents according to the most recent census. The number of a state’s electors in the Electoral College match its number of Representatives and Senators, and in California the winning presidential candidate takes all of the state’s electoral votes.

If representatives were apportioned based only on numbers of legal residents, California would have only 47 representatives.

But thanks to more than 2.5 million illegal immigrants, California has been apportioned 53 representatives and 55 electoral votes.

California is a dependably Democratic state in national elections. The more immigrants California can attract, the more influence the Democratic Party wields both in Congress and in presidential elections, especially since additional house seats are taken from less populous states more likely to lean Republican.

So, in answer to my wondering: To the degree sanctuary cities attract illegal immigrants they decidedly affect not only the state’s congressional representation, but the state’s influence in presidential elections as well.

David Perrell

Clarkdale

Comments

Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comment submissions may not exceed a 200 word limit, and in order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.

Deva1961 1 year, 9 months ago

Maybe it has to do with how heavily their economy relies on those illegal workers. Agriculture is still a very large part of the economy there. Have you considered the impact on your own grocery bill, when growers and producers have to pay at least minimum wage to their employees?

Or maybe, they just want to treat these people like human beings.

2

JAM 1 year, 9 months ago

Excellent discernment David, keep it up.

0

nutso_fasst 1 year, 9 months ago

Last time I was there, San Francisco and Los Angeles were not major agricultural areas. They do, however, grow significant numbers of criminals who help account for the $15.6 billion annual cost of California's criminal justice system. They also grow lots of welfare recipients who are among the third of Americans receiving government assistance who reside in California. In 2005, more than half of Medi-Cal births were "anchor babies" who remain eligible for tax-funded care through the age of 18. California's welfare budget was $44.8 billion last year. Governor Moonbeam is threatening to cut the education budget to avoid a deficit.

The state is now majority Hispanic, about 36% of whom are foreign-born.

0

Habl2 1 year, 9 months ago

David, how do you explain the sanctuary cities across the rest of the country?

1

Deva1961 1 year, 9 months ago

Maybe they should go ahead and secede. They have the sixth largest economy in the world. I'm sure they could make it work.

0