LAWnTaking Leave ofnOur Censusnby Mark KrikoriannIllegal aliens will be counted in then1990 census — that’s right, illegal aliens.nAs a result, one or more states withna disproportionately large number ofnillegal residents will gain seats in thenHouse of Representatives at the expensenof states with few illegal immigrants.nAccording to calculations by thenCongressional Research Service, the inclusionnof illegals in the 1980 censusncaused Georgia and Indiana each tonlose one seat to California and Texas.nDuring the ,next reapportionment ofnseats in Congress, one or more of thenfollowing states are expected to losenrepresentation because of their relativenlack of illegal aliens — Pennsylvania,nNorth Carolina, West Virginia, Minnesota,nWisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, andnGeorgia.nThis de facto inclusion of illegalnaliens in the political community distortsnour system of government in thensame way as the counting of slaves,neven Vs of them, did before the CivilnWar. Since illegals almost never vote,nan individual citizen in California getsnmore Congressmen for his vote, as itnwere, than a citizen in Indiana. Con­n44/CHRONICLESnVITAL SIGNSngressional districts with large numbersnof illegal aliens are therefore similar tonthe old “rotten boroughs” of England,nwhere a handful of people were able tonelect a member to Parliament who hadnthe same authority as a member electednby thousands of voters. And since anstate’s electoral votes are based on thennumber of seats it has in the House ofnRepresentatives, the inclusion of illegalnaliens in the census distorts even thenpresidential election, potentiallynchanging the outcome in a close race.nTo rectify this. CongressmannThomas Ridge (R-PA) sought in Octobernto amend the bill appropriatingnfunds for the Department of Commercen(which oversees the Census Bureau)nto require that illegal aliens notnbe counted in the census for purposesnof congressional apportionment. Thisnwas the same amendment introducednby Senator Richard Shelby (D-AL)nand included by the Senate in its ownnversion of the funding bill. However,nAttorney General Thornburg and Secretarynof Commerce Mosbacher saidnthey would recommend that the Presidentnveto the bill, which also fundednthe Justice and State Departments andnthe entire federal judiciary, if it includednthe provision on illegal aliens. Thenprovision was defeated on a proceduralnvote by 232 to 184.nThis was probably the last in a seriesnof legislative and judicial efforts to stopnthe counting of illegal aliens in’ thenupcoming census. In 1988, 42 Congressmenn(led by Mr. Ridge), threenstate governments, and two nonprofitngroups sued the Census Bureau innFederal Court to stop the counting ofnillegal ‘ immigrants in the upcomingncensus. This suit, like a similar onenfiled in 1980, was dismissed on technicalngrounds. Three bills filed duringnthis Congress in the House of Representativesnfared no better, having diednin committee because the Democraticnleadership had no intention of lettingnHouse members vote on the substancenof this issue.nAdvocates of the inclusion of illegalnaliens in the census came forth with ,nnnsome interesting rationales during thenHouse debate on Mr. Ridge’s amendment:nCongressman Pelosi of Californiansaid, “To deny these people [illegals]nrepresentation — people whonoften embody the most powerless elementsnof our society — is to deny themnjustice.” Lamar Smith of Texas, rankingnRepublican on the House immigrationnsubcommittee, said the inclusionnof illegals in the census reflectsn”the wisdom of the framers of thenConstitution.” And Connie Morella ofnMaryland shuddered, “What a chillingneffect to ask whether one is illegal ornlegal, what a chilling effect to have ournnumerators become INS [immigration]nagents.”nA number of more serious argumentsnhave also been made for countingnillegals. The Fourteenth Amendmentnto the Constitution requires thatnseats in the House of Representativesnbe apportioned “counting the wholennumber of persons in each state.” Thenvery people who see “emanations” andn”penumbras” throughout the Constitutionnhave, on this issue, becomenliteralists. They maintain that the plainnmeaning of the words shows that it isnunconstitutional to exclude anyonenfrom the census count. Yet the CensusnBureau counts only people whosen”usual residence” is in the US, includingnillegal aliens, but excluding foreignnvisitors and some diplomats. Thesenexcluded people are obviously “in” thencountry, but are not counted, whilenservicemen who live abroad will bencounted, and no one seems to mind.nThe Census Bureau opposes thenexclusion of illegals for more mundanenreasons. It maintains there is no practicalnway to distinguish between legalnand illegal residents, and that any attemptnto do so would make its populationnfigures less reliable. The CensusnBureau also points out, with somenjustification, that it is a little late tonchange the rules for the 1990 censusn— 170 million forms have alreadynbeen printed’ up, to be mailed innMarch, and thousands of temporarynworkers have been trained as interview-n