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