It’s About the Constitution

By Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Colorado and a multitude of other states are disregarding the Constitution and federal law. They disguise these actions with the help of complicit judges. Their objective is to inflate numbers in the census. This maneuver aims to claim more seats in the House of Representatives come 2030.

The mechanism is straightforward. The Constitution requires counting the whole number of persons for apportionment. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3 and U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2. Current practice includes noncitizens since no prohibition bars it. Noncitizens remain ineligible to vote in our elections. Nevertheless, their presence shapes congressional district allocations and Electoral College strength across the nation.

Sanctuary Policies and the Census Scheme

States embracing sanctuary policies, such as Colorado, California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington, actively draw and shield noncitizens from full federal enforcement. The Department of Justice has identified these and additional jurisdictions as impeding immigration law. These measures limit local cooperation with federal authorities. The added population boosts their census totals substantially. More seats follow as a direct result. Predominantly left leaning states acquire enhanced influence in the House. This skews the appearance of national consensus toward their viewpoints. Actual citizen sentiment often diverges sharply from the resulting power balance.

The Resulting Distortion of Representation

Sanctuary proponents cite principles like no taxation without representation. The reality proves otherwise. These policies disproportionately inflate counts in select states. They dilute the effective representation of citizens elsewhere. Conservative leaning districts and states suffer reduced relative voice and power in Congress. Their citizens lose proportional voice in national decisions because noncitizen populations cluster elsewhere by design of these policies.

Projections reveal the distortion clearly. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, if current trends continue, immigrants will redistribute 22 seats in the 2030 apportionment. California would gain nine additional seats compared to a no immigrant baseline. New Jersey and Florida would each gain three. Massachusetts, New York, and Texas would each gain two. In contrast, Wisconsin and Ohio would lose two seats each. Colorado and numerous other states would lose one seat apiece due to the inclusion of immigrants. If only illegal immigrants are considered, seven seats shift. Analyses of citizen only apportionment show California losing six seats, New York two, while Texas and Florida each gain two, with gains also for Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and more. The present system reallocates political authority in favor of high noncitizen jurisdictions at the expense of citizen heavy ones.

A Clear Path to Citizen-Centered Elections

Requiring voter identification that confirms citizenship status would correct course. Government would then reflect the will of citizens exclusively. Other democracies including France, Germany, and Mexico exclude noncitizens from national voting. The United States should match that standard without exception. Resistance stems purely from power considerations. Opponents’ virtue signal regarding societal contributions and deserved voices. The Constitution and Supremacy Clause establish federal immigration law as supreme. Conflicting state policies must yield. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

Enforcing Federal Law and Judicial Integrity

When courts apply the full weight of federal criminal immigration law, sanctuary arrangements frequently collapse. Key provisions include 8 U.S.C. § 1325 for improper entry by aliens and 8 U.S.C. § 1324 for bringing in and harboring certain aliens both federal statutes carry criminal penalties. Recent Department of Justice lawsuits against sanctuary policies in California and elsewhere highlight successful challenges under these statutes and the Supremacy Clause. Some members of the judiciary emphasize civil facets while sidelining criminal ones. This pattern demands accountability and reform. Judges must apply the law faithfully rather than advance personal or ideological agendas. The Constitution reigns supreme. Any statute repugnant to it lacks force entirely. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

A Vision for Lasting Reform

I endorse the dream articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. and I also hold a clear vision for our legislative process. Every bill must clear constitutional judicial review prior to executive consideration and signature. No unconstitutional measure should ever become law. Existing statutes require parallel thorough examination and cleanup. Such reforms will restore our Constitutional Republic to its founding ideals of individual freedom and liberty for all citizens.

Just one man’s humble opinion.