Trump is putting California's immigration policy on the defensive

San Diego Union-Tribune:
resident Donald Trump has California Democrats on the defensive over immigration these days.

He’s moved to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census and is picking up support from some California cities and counties in his fight against the state’s sanctuary laws.

Policy merits aside, the politics may work for Republicans, at least in the macro sense.

Not surprisingly, the San Diego-area congressional delegation is split along party lines on the census question, while Republican boards and councils are the ones lining up to join Trump’s lawsuit to dismantle the sanctuary statutes.

The citizenship question on its face doesn’t seem like a big deal: Let’s use the census to count how many citizens actually live here. That’s a simple concept to grasp.

The reason we shouldn’t is less so. Most experts and current and former census officials say it will result in an undercount — when the main purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of who’s actually living here, regardless of citizenship. There’s plenty of empirical and anecdotal evidence that even legal immigrants might be reluctant to participate, let alone those who are unauthorized. The Trump administration says the evidence is not definitive.

An accurate count is important because it helps determine the composition and number of congressional districts — and thus electoral votes — and the distribution of federal funds. That money goes to schools, police departments and all sorts of social service and business programs, among other things.

California is the state with the most immigrants, legal and not, and seems a sure loser if the question remains part of the census. Billions of dollars could go to other states along with one or more congressional districts.
...
Why should citizens in the rest of the country subsidize California's flawed immigration policy?  Why should citizens cede representation of illegal voters?  Calfornia is being challenged not only by Trump but by some of its own votes because of the danger posed by its immigration law scofflaw policy of protecting illegal's.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more