Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
It is already the last year of the decade, and half the year is gone. Once the next few months are gone, the decade of rising social media, Apple’s and Google’s reign, and interesting celestial events like the 2017 Solar Eclipse is over. We will move into the 2020’s, which marks a new era for the world.
What does that mean for the United States? Every ten years, they update the Census, which keeps track of our population. If the population percentage in each state does not reflect its previous percentage, there will be a change in how many representatives in each state. For instance, New York has been the third most populated state for a long time, but in recent times, Florida has pulled ahead. Florida could have another representative representing the state while New York would have fewer. When a state gains a seat or loses a seat, it also affects how many electoral votes the state has. Every state has the same amount of electoral votes as the number of both representatives and senators. Given the fact that there are 2 senators in each state, if 38 representatives represent one state, the president can win 40 electoral votes if he/she wins that state. And that’s set in stone for the next ten years. In addition, whether a state faces changes in seats or not, they will need to re-draw the electoral district lines. The party that dominates the state could take advantage of gerrymandering. And like I said before, that’s our electoral districts for 10 years. If you’re not happy with what they did next year, you will have to wait a long time for that to change.
In recent times, there was an ongoing debate on if the question on citizenship should be on the census. Since illegal immigration has been an issue, a Republican hasn’t been president in a year ending with a 0. But now that we have a Republican president in a year ending with a 0, we could have this on the census. I thought the issue would be about the rights for illegal immigrants to vote, but what it’s really about is if we include citizenship as part of the demographics. We have race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, income, and political party. What we’re missing is citizenship.
But here’s why this is a big deal. If citizenship is included on the census, then our immigrant population will be excluded from both state populations and US population. If you’re a national to another country, you won’t be represented as part of the United States. This could mean that states with heavy immigrant populations will lose a lot of electoral votes, and states that generally have fewer electoral votes can gain more.
Not only I think it’s a good idea to exclude illegal immigrants from the census, but this is vitally important. If you’re not a citizen of the United States, you shouldn’t be represented as part of the United States. In fact, you shouldn’t even be living here in the United States. I’m okay with legal immigrants, but illegal immigrants from any nation shouldn’t be allowed here. And if we let them in, they still shouldn’t represent our nation. They should not vote in state or federal elections, nor could they use any services or programs funded by others’ taxes (especially if they don’t pay taxes). They should not be protected from deportation, nor should they be allowed to infringe on our culture.
Other countries don’t allow illegal immigrants into their homeland. Yet America does. Not only that the government lets them in, but they also let them have these conveniences that are harmful to society. They don’t have to pay taxes, but they can have welfare and food stamps without needing a job. They don’t have to speak English, but public facilities have to speak their language to make them feel welcome. In California, they can vote in federal elections, have Financial Aid and Obamacare, and they don’t have to be reported to ICE if they were caught breaking the law. And let’s not forget that supporters of universal healthcare want them included, nor should we forget that they have rights to have a free abortion at taxpayer expense in Oregon. Liberals want to have all that for our immigrants, yet they don’t want citizenship to be included on the 2020 Census. They consider it “racist” to oppose all of what was said here (sanctuary cities, voting rights for illegals, and welfare or food stamps for illegals), but it’s treason if you do otherwise (and a violation of common sense as well). We should welcome foreigners who are escaping other nations to avoid war, oppression, or corruption, but the way we’re tolerating illegal immigration is one of the downfalls of American civilization.
Putting that aside, the question on citizenship needs to be included on the census. California, the state with 55 electoral votes (which is the most out of all 50 states) is locked on the Democratic Party. Not only it hasn’t voted a Republican president in the last 28 years, but it’s also not possible for Republicans to even run in the Senate in the general election. Even the state government is hard for Republicans to win control. New York (which is worth 29 electoral votes) is also locked on the Democratic Party, as that voted Democrat consistently for 32 years. The total amount of electoral votes both states have equals the total electoral votes all Republican-locked states have (if you don’t count Texas). The reason why California has the highest amount of electoral votes is because it has the highest population. But they’re counting illegal immigrants as part of the state’s population. If a state is locked onto one party, they shouldn’t have that many electoral votes. California is already unfriendly to Republicans, and New York is part of the Northeast, yet the Democrats want to turn Texas into a blue state. If we can’t include our immigrant population as part of any state population, it would devalue California, Texas, and New York while the lesser valuable states like Kansas and Iowa would be more valuable. Granted, California will still have the most electoral votes, but it wouldn’t be as much.
If they want to fix the electorate, here’s what I suggest: the five least populated states should have 6 representatives each while the five most populated states should have 11. The second five least populated states should have 7, the third five least populated states should have 8, the second five most populated states should 10, and the others should have 9. They should also get rid of gerrymandering, and nullify nonpartisan blanket primaries (which is why Republicans can’t even be nominated in California’s senate race). To increase voting integrity, they should have national voter ID laws, national voter registration, and purge dead people and non-citizens from voting. This way, this can make it easier for Republicans to win national elections, but the Democrats still have advantages.
What does that mean for the United States? Every ten years, they update the Census, which keeps track of our population. If the population percentage in each state does not reflect its previous percentage, there will be a change in how many representatives in each state. For instance, New York has been the third most populated state for a long time, but in recent times, Florida has pulled ahead. Florida could have another representative representing the state while New York would have fewer. When a state gains a seat or loses a seat, it also affects how many electoral votes the state has. Every state has the same amount of electoral votes as the number of both representatives and senators. Given the fact that there are 2 senators in each state, if 38 representatives represent one state, the president can win 40 electoral votes if he/she wins that state. And that’s set in stone for the next ten years. In addition, whether a state faces changes in seats or not, they will need to re-draw the electoral district lines. The party that dominates the state could take advantage of gerrymandering. And like I said before, that’s our electoral districts for 10 years. If you’re not happy with what they did next year, you will have to wait a long time for that to change.
In recent times, there was an ongoing debate on if the question on citizenship should be on the census. Since illegal immigration has been an issue, a Republican hasn’t been president in a year ending with a 0. But now that we have a Republican president in a year ending with a 0, we could have this on the census. I thought the issue would be about the rights for illegal immigrants to vote, but what it’s really about is if we include citizenship as part of the demographics. We have race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, income, and political party. What we’re missing is citizenship.
But here’s why this is a big deal. If citizenship is included on the census, then our immigrant population will be excluded from both state populations and US population. If you’re a national to another country, you won’t be represented as part of the United States. This could mean that states with heavy immigrant populations will lose a lot of electoral votes, and states that generally have fewer electoral votes can gain more.
Not only I think it’s a good idea to exclude illegal immigrants from the census, but this is vitally important. If you’re not a citizen of the United States, you shouldn’t be represented as part of the United States. In fact, you shouldn’t even be living here in the United States. I’m okay with legal immigrants, but illegal immigrants from any nation shouldn’t be allowed here. And if we let them in, they still shouldn’t represent our nation. They should not vote in state or federal elections, nor could they use any services or programs funded by others’ taxes (especially if they don’t pay taxes). They should not be protected from deportation, nor should they be allowed to infringe on our culture.
Other countries don’t allow illegal immigrants into their homeland. Yet America does. Not only that the government lets them in, but they also let them have these conveniences that are harmful to society. They don’t have to pay taxes, but they can have welfare and food stamps without needing a job. They don’t have to speak English, but public facilities have to speak their language to make them feel welcome. In California, they can vote in federal elections, have Financial Aid and Obamacare, and they don’t have to be reported to ICE if they were caught breaking the law. And let’s not forget that supporters of universal healthcare want them included, nor should we forget that they have rights to have a free abortion at taxpayer expense in Oregon. Liberals want to have all that for our immigrants, yet they don’t want citizenship to be included on the 2020 Census. They consider it “racist” to oppose all of what was said here (sanctuary cities, voting rights for illegals, and welfare or food stamps for illegals), but it’s treason if you do otherwise (and a violation of common sense as well). We should welcome foreigners who are escaping other nations to avoid war, oppression, or corruption, but the way we’re tolerating illegal immigration is one of the downfalls of American civilization.
Putting that aside, the question on citizenship needs to be included on the census. California, the state with 55 electoral votes (which is the most out of all 50 states) is locked on the Democratic Party. Not only it hasn’t voted a Republican president in the last 28 years, but it’s also not possible for Republicans to even run in the Senate in the general election. Even the state government is hard for Republicans to win control. New York (which is worth 29 electoral votes) is also locked on the Democratic Party, as that voted Democrat consistently for 32 years. The total amount of electoral votes both states have equals the total electoral votes all Republican-locked states have (if you don’t count Texas). The reason why California has the highest amount of electoral votes is because it has the highest population. But they’re counting illegal immigrants as part of the state’s population. If a state is locked onto one party, they shouldn’t have that many electoral votes. California is already unfriendly to Republicans, and New York is part of the Northeast, yet the Democrats want to turn Texas into a blue state. If we can’t include our immigrant population as part of any state population, it would devalue California, Texas, and New York while the lesser valuable states like Kansas and Iowa would be more valuable. Granted, California will still have the most electoral votes, but it wouldn’t be as much.
If they want to fix the electorate, here’s what I suggest: the five least populated states should have 6 representatives each while the five most populated states should have 11. The second five least populated states should have 7, the third five least populated states should have 8, the second five most populated states should 10, and the others should have 9. They should also get rid of gerrymandering, and nullify nonpartisan blanket primaries (which is why Republicans can’t even be nominated in California’s senate race). To increase voting integrity, they should have national voter ID laws, national voter registration, and purge dead people and non-citizens from voting. This way, this can make it easier for Republicans to win national elections, but the Democrats still have advantages.
