Your statement about illegal aliens may or may not be included in the apportionment numbers is the question. However, the real question should not be about citizenship vs illegal migrants. The question should be about “inhabitants” and the Constitution’s original public meaning which tied apportionment “to persons with a fixed abode and far more permanent place in the political community than simple physical presence.” Non-citizens are subject to involuntary removal and thus cannot be considered an inhabitant in the constitutional sense.
I hope the upcoming raids and removal of those who already have court orders to be removed will have an impact. There’s approximately a million people in this country with removal orders.
“The question should be about “inhabitants” and the Constitution’s original public meaning which tied apportionment “to persons with a fixed abode and far more permanent place in the political community than simple physical presence.”
I agree in principle, but what if the courts rule otherwise?