Posted on 10/05/2012 8:07:12 PM PDT by presidio9
If President Obama wins reelection by three or four Electoral College votes next month, the reason may be simple: noncitizens, mostly immigrants, who don’t have the right to vote. No, I’m not talking about his immigration policy or his popularity with Latinos. Nor does this have anything to do with voter fraud. Rather, an Obama victory could hinge on a quirk in the Constitution that gives noncitizens, a group that includes illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents, a say in electing the president of the United States.
As required by Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, the decennial census, which allocates to each state its congressional seats and Electoral College votes, is based on a count of all people who live in the United States, citizens and noncitizens alike — or as the Constitution phrases it, “the whole number of persons in each state.” That means millions of noncitizens who are ineligible to vote are included in Electoral College calculations, and that benefits some states over others. Most of these noncitizens are here legally; however, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about 45 percent of noncitizens are undocumented immigrants.
In 2010 and most previous years, the census did not inquire about citizenship, but the American Community Survey (ACS), which samples our population every month, includes a breakdown of citizens and noncitizens. Plugging the 2010 ACS citizen-only numbers into the Census Bureau’s apportionment formula shows that
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In my day I've crossed a few international borders.Many,many borders in fact.I have never,*ever* violated any country's immigration laws,not even Australia's,a nation that denied my application for a "green card".And,in return,I don't expect *any* foreigner to violate the immigration laws of *my* country.Not one! I will not tolerate it,I will not look the other way!
I'm afraid I have to tell you that I'll continue to use that word so that I might avoid using the words I *truly* want to use...words that would certainly get me banned from FR for life.
Sorry if you're offended.
Hispanics entering CA illegally don’t have to swim. You’re referring to those entering TX.
This article is essentially commenting on the differential between proportional representation by voter and the distribution of votes in the EC.
The EC heavily favors the GOP. The EC gives one vote to each state for each senator and rep. This means smaller population states get a huge boost in their representation versus larger states.
More of the smaller states are red than blue. Of the six states with 20 or more electoral votes, NY, CA and IL are reliably blue, PA leans that way, TX is reliably red, and FL swings.
Of the 8 states with only three EC votes, five are red and three are blue.
” .wish they would all go home and finish destroying thier own country.”
Welfare is much better here....now they can ghettoize our country, and increase our crime rate.All of those Somalis that Obama has let settle here have tripled the crime rate wherever they settled. No need to go home.
” .wish they would all go home and finish destroying thier own country.”
Welfare is much better here....now they can ghettoize our country, and increase our crime rate.All of those Somalis that Obama has let settle here have tripled the crime rate wherever they settled. No need to go home.
Illegals are just doing the job for our REAL enemies, and they don’t realize it.
Hopefully they will wake up and join the people who really do want
to keep America from being taken over.
They too will not go unscathed in the end.
I’d like to think that we are smart enough here to make our political points without resorting to racial epithets that some may find offensive. Your intentions are no doubt in the right place, but such language cheapens our position the same way it was wrong for Rush Libaugh to call Sandra Flouke a “slut,” even if she happens to be one.
With all due respect, "slut" is not one of those proscribed four-letter words. It's part of the King's English, describing a female who is overly-promiscuous.
As such, "slut" would appear to be an apt description and, thus, a legitimate use of the word.
“Texas has four new seats, three of which are supposedly based on Hispanic influx. Those EC votes will go to Romney.”
Within 25 years, when the children of all those millions of “[illegal] Hispanic influx” into Texas come-of-voting-age, to which part are those electoral college votes going to go?
Hint:
The exact same fate of California awaits Texas — and any other state in which Hispanics congregate…
Case in point:
New Mexico — once considerably more conservative than today, NM has now become the second “white minority” state in which Hispanics are at or near the majority. And NM is becoming increasingly “blue”.
Arizona is holding out for the moment, but won’t be able to do so forever.
What we are seeing in the southwest, from California to Texas, is the “emerging Atzlan”. That portion of the country is destined to be majority Hispanic, as much as certain portions of Western Europe will eventually become Islamic...
As such, "slut" would appear to be an apt description and, thus, a legitimate use of the word.
Listen professor, you could make the same point about most offensive language. The point is not whether you find a word offensive. Or even whether you agree with others who find such language offensive. In civilized discourse you go out of your way to avoid offending anyone personally while making your point. That's just common courtesy. Rush understood this, and apologized. So did Ed Schultz for that matter, no rocket scientist. If this is something you are not capable of doing, you need to stay on the sidelines. This website has been capable of accomplishing great things, but it's public perception will always be colored by its lowest denominator.
“The EC heavily favors the GOP.”
It won’t much longer.
Have you read about the demographics of Texas? The exploding (carefully chosen word) birthrates of Hispanics vis-a-vis the declining birthrate for Euros all-but guarantees that within a generation, Texas will “tip” from majority-Republican to majority-democrat.
Once the Pubbies can no longer count on Texas’ 55 electoral votes, it will become mathematically impossible for them to again win the presidency.
Even today, the ‘rats start off with a larger “electoral college baseline” (i.e., states in which victory is near-guaranteed to them) than do the Republicans.
Once Tejas goes, it’s all over.
I don’t like it any more than you do.
But that’s the future.
why do they get 5 more House members than they should have!?
Forgive me if I detect a whiff of condescension in your response.
My point was simply making a distinction between words that are "offensive" -- but appropriate (if accurate) -- as opposed to words that are "nasty" -- and inappropriate (even if accurate).
"Slut" belongs to the former category.
Please accept my apologies if I have offended you with my response.
If that's the point you were trying to make, you are on the wrong website. In politics, the only thing that ever matters is public perception, and "inappropriate" is a big part of that.
Illegals are counted for one reason, to destroy this republic.
But that’s the future.
Actually that's the future that the DNC envisions, but its not entirely accurate. As much as they would like Hispanics to be the new blacks, they aren't and they probably never will be. They don't have the history of racial injustice to fall back on, and they generally came here for their own economic reasons. No, they are not assimilating as fast as previous minority groups. But the ones who are successful will hate paying taxes just as much as the rest of us. And as a group they have major issues with the liberal social agenda. Will they break 60/40 Democrat for a generation or two? Probably. But it would be foolish to write them off the way you appear to be doing. I disagree with a lot of what Rick Perry has to say, but I think he was doing the Lord's work in recognizing the problem for what it is and trying to solve it instead of alienating a huge percentage of his voting bloc out of hand.
Where’s the Missouri Compromise when you need it?
That was just a quick guess on my part.But it's clearly the case that a very substantial percentage of the country's 30 million wetbacks live in CA...25%...33%...maybe even half.Even 7 million wetbacks living in CA translates to something like 20% of the state's population.Which means lots of extra Electoral votes.
In other words, one should say, “non-legal persons from ‘south-of-the-border.’”
I suppose one could if one didn't want people to understand what one was talking about. WE seemed to be talking about about the usage of the word "slut" (or lack thereof).
I guess you were trying to be clever, but do what you will with some friendly advice: Don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.