« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Tribute to a fallen Marine »

Those no-count illegal aliens...

Politically, Massachusetts is in a bit of a fix. With the next census and reapportioning of Congressional seats, they can fully expect to lose one -- if not two -- members of the House, as the state has been hemorrhaging people for years now. More and more are finding themselves fed up with the high cost (both financially and otherwise) of belonging to the "nanny state" and heading to greener pastures.

But state officials are not taking this loss lying down. No sirree, they've figured out a way to offset those lost residents:

They want to count their illegal alien population

Somehow, I don't think that the Founding Fathers had this in mind when they set up the census. And personally, I think it's downright morally repugnant to count illegal aliens -- who have none of the rights and privileges of citizens and legal residents -- when it comes to determining Congressional representation. These people have a government of their own that they can turn to, if they wish. If they wanted to participate in our political process (or even just be recognized by it), they could either return to their homelands or come here legally.

It's nuts. And worse, it's exploitative. People on the left say that the right exploits illegal aliens as scapegoats and sources of cheap labor. But the left does their own exploiting, too, and here we see the bluest of the blue states suddenly finding it incredibly convenient to track down and use these illegal aliens in order to preserve their political power.

Both sides do their share of exploiting illegal aliens; it's just the methods that change.

In their blind rush to save that Congressional seat, the "leaders" of Massachusetts are asking themselves the wrong question. It isn't "how can we save that seat," but "why are so many people leaving?" And the answer is simple: because they have mismanaged the state right down the toilet, and more and more people are recognizing that simple fact.

The corollary question is "why are so many illegal aliens coming to Massachusetts?" And that answer is, also, simple: because they know that the state is incredibly friendly to illegals. They are not required to show legal status for state-subsidized housing, for welfare, and the cops are forbidden from even asking about immigration status.

In Massachusetts today, the circumstances are such that citizens and legal aliens are fleeing in droves, while illegal aliens are flocking in to take their place. If this continues unchecked, enough taxpayers will have fled -- and replaced by those living "off the grid" -- that the state will simply be unable to pay its bills.

Maybe they might come to their senses before then, and figure out a way to turn around the ship of state before it sails right off the waterfall.

And maybe Jerry Springer will be elected president of the United States.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Those no-count illegal aliens...:

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 01/19/2007

Comments (39)

" I think it's downright mo... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

" I think it's downright morally repugnant to count illegal aliens -- who have none of the rights and privileges of citizens and legal residents .."

Illegals also have none of the responsibilities of citizens.

Benefits without responsibilities. If I had it to do over again, I'd rather be born a minority in America today.

If it's ok for Massachusett... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

If it's ok for Massachusetts to count it's illegal aliens, then it's ok for all states to count their illegal aliens. The result would be that Massachusetts loses even more seats.

the alien stock is up today... (Below threshold)
Massachusetts does not stan... (Below threshold)

Massachusetts does not stand a chance of correcting its direction. This lastest gambit (count the illegals, excuse me, UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS) is an example. Can you imagine what John Adams would think of this wreck of a state?

Jay, I usually a... (Below threshold)


I usually agree with your opinions but in this case I think the founding fathers actually did accept that non-citizens would be counted (at least 3/5th of a person) :

From Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This was of course aimed at slaves but they didn't have citizenship either (no, I'm not saying illegals are slaves).

After the civil war this was changed in Amendment 14 - Which deals with Citizens rights:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Which lays it out pretty clear no vote - no count.

I think Mac's point is sign... (Below threshold)

I think Mac's point is significant both in its truth and in demonstrating the presbyopic approach to government that has made Massachusetts what it is today. These fools couldn't even foresee the consequences of counting their illegals versus the illegals elsewhere in their little scheme of things. Very sad.

If Jerry is running against... (Below threshold)

If Jerry is running against Hillary! (D) and McCain (TV) he might get my vote. It depends on whether Gus Hall is running I guess.

At best, a troll counts as ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

At best, a troll counts as only 3/5's of a commenter.

Old Coot,Those dar... (Below threshold)

Old Coot,

Those darn founding fathers - they wrote that whole constitution thing. Now supporting it gets me called a troll. If thats the price then I'm a troll, because I've sworn to support and defend it.

It is pretty clear that non-citizens used to count for Representation in the House but the 14 Amendment changed that. Now it supports Jay's assertion: if you can't vote then you shouldn't count for determining your representation for congress. You want to call me a troll, fine, but at least read the Constitution. It's kind of important in this argument.

Follow the logic trail anot... (Below threshold)

Follow the logic trail another step. Mass is upset that it is losing one or two seats. So it wants to count illegal aliens as a way of inflating its population numbers to mitigate the loss.

But Texas is gaining two to four seats seats (probably three). And unless Mass wants to have special rules just for them (okay, that was silly, of course they want special rules just for them), Texas can probably rustle up enough illegal alliens to find a fifth seat or atleast hold the -1/-2 to +2/+4 ratio the same.

Of course Texas doesn't have a state income tax (which also means I don't pay the AMT at the federal level). We also believe in putting people who commit crimes in jail, letting people who don't commit crimes to carry guns to protect them from those who do commit crimes and that the best social program is a job so keeping the economy growing is more important than pouring money down ratholes.

So of course the Mass liberals don't recognize that they are part of why the state is loosing one or two seats, but the Texas conservatives do recognize that they are part of why Texas is gaining two to four seats. Heck, we have almost a third of a decade, lets go for five more seats.

PSS: Wasn't directed at you... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

PSS: Wasn't directed at you, don't take offense.

Hey ICE. Mass is going to f... (Below threshold)

Hey ICE. Mass is going to find the illigals for ya. Put the savings in Social Security please.

YetantotherJohn,Wh... (Below threshold)


What does living in Texas have to do with not having to deal with AMT?

Old Coot, NP. Frie... (Below threshold)

Old Coot,

NP. Friends don't let friends drink and post...I guess I need more friends.

"why are so many people lea... (Below threshold)

"why are so many people leaving?"

More importantly, why are we letting them bring their f-ed up politics to NH?

Jimbo,The AMT gene... (Below threshold)


The AMT generally kicks in when you have high deductions, usually associated with deductions for state taxes. Because Texas doesn't have a state income tax, I perforce do not take a state income tax payment as a deduction on my federal tax. My total tax bill is thus lower (combined state and federal).

Contrast this to living in a state with a high state personal income tax (e.g. Mass). They total up their federal tax and deduct their state income tax on their federal tax form. But then AMT comes back and says feed the fed more. Net result is higher tax bill as you not only pay more for the state income tax, but the federal tax rate is kept up by the AMT.

Bottom line is the question who does the best job with the money. Texas tends to leave more in the hands of the people and less in the hands of government. Economy booms, people move here, more state revenue overall is raised through sales tax, but each individual keeps a bigger slice of their own paycheck.

Score -2 to +4 for high tax vs low tax, but whose counting.

JayI know you just... (Below threshold)


I know you just love to rag on MA and make tha state your object of scorn.

You even imagine that, "the state has been hemorrhaging people for years now. More and more are finding themselves fed up with the high cost (both financially and otherwise) of belonging to the "nanny state" and heading to greener pastures..."

In spite of what you have to say about government and the people of MA, your above assertion is just plain factually incorrect regarding the "hemorrahging" of population.

According to the US Census Bureau, the population of MA in 2000 was 6,349,097, with the most recent estimate from July 12005, at 6,398,743 for a growth of 0.8%.

The most likely explanation for the potential loss of 2 seats in the MA Congressional delegation is faster growth of population in other states. The slim growth of population in 5 years also suggests that there are few, if any, hordes of illegal immigrants flocking to MA.

aRepukelican, Con... (Below threshold)


Congressional seats are based on that state's population not the population of other 50 states. Your most likely explanation is impossible.

aRepukelican, T... (Below threshold)


Try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

It's the US Constitution. It's kind of important since it lays out the framework the US operates under. Maybe you can still sue your gradeschool.

aRepukelican,How w... (Below threshold)


How would you like me to invest your money and guarantee that you will make money? I guarantee that you will get a 0.8% return. Just think of all the good you can do with that return.

Not interested? Think you can make more somewhere else? But what does that matter. Surely just because you can make 5.3% somewhere else and 0.8% with me doesn't make that 5.3% in any way superior.

The US population grew at an average of 5.3% over the same time period. Mass would have to grow at about 7 times its current rate to just stay even. Maybe that isn't hemoraging in your book, but its close enough for me.

Texas grew at a rate of 9.6% over that same time period. Thats more than an order of magnitude higher growth. For every 1 person increase in Mass, there was 12 more in Texas. Net score, Mass down 2, Texas up 3 or 4.

Now the bigger question is Mass driving people away or is Texas attracting them. Does living under one of the most liberal state governments vs one of the more conservative state governments cause that 1 to 12 growth ratio? And assuming that the conservative government is at all responsible for any part of the improvement, why would anyonewant to go down the failed path of liberalism?

PorkSalad Sandwich</... (Below threshold)

PorkSalad Sandwich

Oink, Oink, but you are one little piggy who doesn't know what you are grunting about.

The total seats in the Congress remains at 435 regardless of the US population. Every strate is guaranteed at least 1 representative. Redistricting occurs when the population is divided out by the most recent census data and the number of seats a state gets is allocated accordingly, with the above exception.

So, go sniff in another trough, there's no swill here.

yetanotherjohn...WTF cares about your point. We're talking about people and seats while you talk about investment returns. Apples & Oranges, but don't let PSS know...hogs will eat anything.

aRepublican, The gang's reg... (Below threshold)

aRepublican, The gang's regrouping...googling, googling...

aRepukelican,Sorry... (Below threshold)


Sorry if you didn't get my point. Let me try again. Mass and Texas made policy choices. Mass opted for high taxes, worry more about criminals than their victims and in general let liberal lunacy reign. They have a 100% democrat delegation to DC and are overhwelmingly democratic in their state government.

Texas opted for low taxes, worry about stopping crime more than political correctness and in general let conservative self reliance reign. Every state wide office is held by a republican, but we do have a mix of democrats and republicans that we send to congress.

The results of these two very different political phiosophies is that Mass has so far grown at a very paltry 0.8%. The national average is 5.3%. Texas has grown at a very respectable 9.6%. So there is a good chance that Mass will be down 2 and Texas up four seats with the next census.

The policy choices are like investments and the growth is like the return on investment. You seem to think that a growth of 0.8% when the average is 5.3% is perfectly reasonable. I disagree.

By the way. Check out some of the other data from the census and CDC. Look at the growth rates by state, fertility rates per by state (live births) and abortion rates per state. Result, red states like Texas have a live birth rate greater than the replacement rate of 2.1 while blue states like Mass have a live birth rate of less than the 2.1 replacement rate. Guess what happens if the live birth rate remains below replacement rate and high taxes, high crime rate, etc discourage people from moving into the state? You get an anemic 0.8% growth.

Is it really that hard for you to connect the dots and understand that the liberal political philosophy has been discredited by any objective measurement?

"the liberal political phil... (Below threshold)

"the liberal political philosophy has been discredited by any objective measurement?" ..."liberal political philosophy" is the basis of the founding of this nation. Our capitalist body politic is better divided into social democrats and corporate socialists. But the "L" word is more comfortable than the "S" word in that it allows people to project their own beliefs when the terms are so vague, and to pretend there's a greater difference between the parties than there actually is. That's why there's so much talking past the other side when both sides are informed: the object is to use psychological sales techniques to buffalo the "audience" one campaign at a time. In the 30's, "healthful" was a word that sold moms nationwide that junior might die without his Horlich.

yetanotherjohnYour... (Below threshold)


Your simplistic analysis regarding the TX population expansion flies in the face of the fact that SW American population expansion has been going on for some time.

As Texan knuckle-walkers like you are increasingly outnumbered by an influx of more enlightened immigrants, your state might finally enter the 20th century, at long last.

aRepukelican,You s... (Below threshold)


You seem to want to live in a fantasy world than look at the hard cold facts.

Top ten growth states
Ariz, Nev., Idaho, Ga., Texas, Utah, N.C., Colo, Fla, S.C.

Notice any pattern? Those are red states. Notice the absence of Blue states.

Top states for internal to the US migration into the state:
Texas, Fla, Ariz, Ga., N.C., Tenn and S.C.

These tend to be low tax states with pro growth governments.

Top states for internal to the US emigration out of the state:
Calif, LA, NY, NJ, Ill, Mich, Mass, Ohio

These tend to be high tax states with prioroities other than growing their economies.

Net result is people vote with their feet to get away from the logical consequences of the liberal political philiosophy.

Our founding Father would n... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Our founding Father would not ever approve of allowing illegal aleins to recieve workers benifits and be allowed to stay we need to dump the UN and CFR

Hey, Pukeface: as you can s... (Below threshold)

Hey, Pukeface: as you can see here, Massachusetts lost an average of 42,000 people a year from 2001 to 2004. That has been ameliorated somewhat by illegal aliens, but it ought to be one scary-ass statistic to anyone.


aRepukelican, Ouch... (Below threshold)


Ouch, that's going to leave a mark, you are of course right about 435 - I wonder if I can sue my gradeschool.

Jay TMy link was f... (Below threshold)

Jay T

My link was from data from the US Census Bureau....yours a quote from someone quoting someone.

Worse yet, it came from a resource you absolutely revile, except, apparently when you find some piece that suits your point..

I'll stick w/ the US figures while you go ahead and dig up whatever you can to try to make some point.

Well, if this works for the... (Below threshold)

Well, if this works for them, hopefully Utah will get to count their missionaries again.

And aRepukelican....

What is it that you have a against Southerners?

First southern Ohioans are "hillbillies" and now Texans are "knucklewalkers"?

Hey "pukeface" who do you t... (Below threshold)

Hey "pukeface" who do you think we are going to believe-you are Jay.

jhow66Frankly, my ... (Below threshold)


Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn!!!!!

You of the Wizchoir only believe what your hymnal teaches and the US Census Bureau that I cited is clearly a tool of the Commie Left throwing out false figures to make Jay look like an asshole.

Pukeface, if you could tone... (Below threshold)

Pukeface, if you could tone down the venom a smidgen, you'd be able to comprehend that there doesn't have to be a contradiction between your numbers and mine. You've cited the 2000-2005 count, while the Globe's story (which was picked up all over the place, but their account was the first I found) cited 2001-2004. In fact, if you stipulate a surge of about 200,000 in 2005, then both figures work quite nicely.

I'll be curious to see the figures for 2006 when they come out, to see if that likely surge was an aberration or a reversal of the 4-year trend. I suspect it'll be the former -- but THAT is speculation and opinion.


Jay TWhile you thi... (Below threshold)

Jay T

While you think me to be venomous, I usually do not respond that way until addressed by the likes of jhow 66, LaveAmerica Immigrant, RobLA Ca, P. Bunyan, Scrapiron and a few others on here who typically respond only in epithets and never make an attempt to discuss or debate, but rather hurl nothing but invective and, often illiterate invective on the basest level.

In fact, my observation here on Wizbang, is that comments usually begin w/ a reasonable effort at debate and sometimes good hearty "one-upsmanship" and then, about half-way along, begin to degenerate into hateful bile and insults, typically initiated by the above-named Wizcrew.

I am amazed that you fail to notice the level of vitriol that generally is the only content that some of these posters have to offer and that you fail to notice how this Wizcrew takes down good repartee while injecting illiterate bile.

And, then, you mean to say that their is no venom in your manner of address?

Pukeface, if you were reall... (Below threshold)

Pukeface, if you were really interested in civil discourse, you'd have chosen another epithet. You set the tone from the very outset. And since no one assigned you that name, but it's entirely of your choosing, you have no one to blame but yourself.


Jay TeaAs I told y... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea

As I told you, many of your ilk love to use "Democrat" Party and "Democrat" Senator or Congressman because it was inspired by Gingrich & his 1984 "newspeak" guru Frank Luntz as a means of conveying contempt toward the Democratic Party.

Since most Republicans insist on using ungrammatical language as a deliberate method of hurling an epithet towards Democrats (apart from the fact that it is not the correct name of the party) and since most of the posters here at Wizbang do the same, I chose my nic as a means of hurling it back.

If you think it's offensive or, if the foo shits, then wear it.

When posters at this site use the correct name of the Democratic Party, then I will change my nic.

aRepukelican, thank goodnes... (Below threshold)

aRepukelican, thank goodness there are people here trained in first aid and CPR.

Since you insist on holding your breath until you get your way, you may need their help.

So, pukeboy, you're going t... (Below threshold)

So, pukeboy, you're going to let those you despise control your actions? You're going to let those you've declared your political enemies sway the way you define yourself? And because SOME of them do ONE thing you don't like, you're going to insult ALL of them?

Not exactly what I'd call a great way to "win friends and influence people." In fact, I think OhioVoter nailed it -- it's beyond juvenile. "Infantile" might be closer.







Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy