Selected news coverage of:

Remaking the Political Landscape
How Immigration Redistributes Seats in the House

Study Says Immigration Skews Congressional Apportionment
By William Branigin
The Washington Post, October 6, 1998, p. A4

The biggest sustained wave of immigration in U.S. history is skewing Americans' representation in Congress, increasing the political clout of states with the largest influxes at the expense of other states, according to a new study.

In a report released today, the Center for Immigration Studies pinpoints recent immigration as a major factor in the reapportionment of seats in the House, a trend it says is effectively reducing the voting power of citizens in certain states and "redistributing political influence in Washington." An analysis of census data indicates that 13 seats changed hands in 1990 or will do so in the next census because of immigration, the center says.

The D.C.-based think tank, which advocates lower levels of immigration, makes no specific recommendations in its study but criticizes what it calls the "mass immigration" of recent years and suggests that "a more moderate level" would mitigate the reapportionment.

With an influx of more than 15 million legal immigrants alone since 1980 and the tendency of newcomers to cluster together — 75 percent of all immigrants live in just six states — immigration is fueling much more rapid population increases in some places than in others. And because the 435 House seats are reapportioned every 10 years based, according to the Constitution, on each state's population — including citizens, legal immigrants and illegal aliens — this trend is shifting political representation to the states with the most immigrants, creating districts with relatively few voters.

"High immigration produces a situation in which American citizens lose representation in Congress so that noncitizen immigrants, none of whom can vote and many of whom are illegal, can be 'represented' in the House," the study said.

Immigration advocates dismissed that view as "nativist" and argued that, in any case, immigrants are becoming U.S. citizens and voting at record rates.

"For over 200 years, our democracy has sought to represent all Americans whether born here or not, and we seem to be doing pretty well," said Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum. "I don't think the fact our system is flexible and seeks to represent people who weren't born here is a sign of weakness. In fact, it's a sign of strength."

According to the study, the redistribution is caused primarily by legal immigration. Of the 13 seats redistributed by immigration, it says, four may be attributable to the presence of illegal immigrants. By comparison, the study says, a total of 31 House seats were reallocated in 1990 or will be in 2000 for all reasons, including demographic shifts due to economics.

The study projects that because of immigration since 1990, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will each lose one seat, and Colorado and Kentucky will both fail to gain a seat they otherwise would have gained in the 2000 census. Immigration in the 1980s cost Louisiana, Michigan, Montana and Ohio a seat each in 1990, while Georgia and Kentucky failed to gain a seat, the study says.

California is the biggest winner, gaining nine seats that other states have lost in 1990 or are projected to lose in 2000 because of immigration, the study says.

Although congressional districts across the country are supposed to be roughly equal in population, with an average of 570,000 people each in 1990, heavily concentrated immigration means it now takes far fewer votes to elect a representative in certain jurisdictions because so many of the residents are noncitizens, said Steven A. Camarota, a co-author of the study.

In the 1996 elections, for example, the number of votes sufficient to elect a representative in some districts of California and Texas was only about a quarter of those needed in the average Michigan district, he said.

The study has a bearing on people's voting rights, because it shows that some citizens' votes are worth less than others, said James Gimpel, an associate professor of government at the University of Maryland. He listed three possible solutions: Stop counting noncitizens for purposes of apportionment, reduce immigration or encourage more immigrants to naturalize and vote.

On the other hand, said Peter Skerry, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, continuing to count immigrants in congressional constituencies has the somewhat "ironic" consequence of ensuring that "the effects of immigration aren't so isolated," but are felt in states that draw relatively few immigrants.

Michael Fix, director of immigration studies at the Urban Institute, said the current system contains a "trade-off" between a "modest dissipation of voting power" for some citizens and a greater voice for places that "bear the costs of immigration and settlement."

Immigration affecting congressional seats, study finds
By Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press, October 6, 1998

WASHINGTON (AP) — The influx of immigrants is significantly affecting which states will come out ahead in the redistribution of House seats, according to a study released Tuesday.

The Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors lower immigration, said the concentration of new immigrants in just a few states resulted in six states losing House seats after the 1990 census. It predicted that seven more would lose seats after the 2000 census.

That is a "distortion of the political system in which seats are taken away from citizens and reallocated in effect to noncitizens," said Mark Krikorian, the center's executive director.

The 435 House seats are redistributed every 10 years based on changes in the population. The Census Bureau counts all residents, including noncitizens and illegal aliens, in determining the population.

Immigration groups warned against any disenfranchising of noncitizens. "Legal immigrants are future Americans so they should be counted," said Joel Najar of the National Council of La Raza, an Hispanic advocacy group.

"The founding fathers decided on apportionment by population, not by votes," said Jeanne Butterfield of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "Counting immigrants who live here, pay taxes and serve in the military ... is consistent with that principle."

The study said 800,000 to 900,000 legal immigrants arrive in the country every year, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that 420,000 illegal aliens enter the country annually. Three out of four settle in six states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey and Illinois.

As a result, California got four new seats after 1990 and will get five more after 2000 that it wouldn't have been allotted if there had been no immigration, the study concluded. New York picked up one after 1990 and will get another after 2000; Florida got one after 1990; and Texas will get one after 2000.

On the other side, after 1990 Louisiana, Michigan, Montana and Ohio lost seats and Georgia and Kentucky failed to get seats they would have otherwise received without the immigration factor.

In 2000, the study predicted, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will lose one seat and Colorado and Kentucky will be deprived of a new seat because of immigration. Of the 13 affected seats, perhaps four are attributable to the presence of illegal aliens, it said.

"The stakes are high for low immigration states," said Steven Camarota, one of the report's authors. "This can be seen as distorting our democracy."

One result of the trend, he said, was that representatives from immigration-heavy districts were elected with far fewer votes. The report noted that in 1996 more than 200,000 votes were cast in typical congressional races in Michigan, which has few immigrants, while 55,000 votes were cast in the immigrant-heavy 33rd district of California and only 51,000 in the 25th district of Texas.

The concentration of immigrants, who usually vote Democratic, will lead to more safe Democratic seats, said James Gimpel, a University of Maryland associate professor who is an expert on immigration issues and spoke at the center's news conference. "You are likely to see more partisan polarization on the immigration issue," he said.

That will be true "if Republicans continue to keep bashing immigrants," said Yolanda Chavez, chief of staff for Rep. Lucille Royball-Allard, Democrat from California's 33rd district. She said in the last election, her district had the biggest voter increase of any in the state and that new voters are turning out at higher rates than other citizens.

The report did not make any recommendations on how to ease the effects of immigration on the political process. But Gimpel said the country could stop counting noncitizens, something that could require a constitutional amendment. Other solutions, he said, were streamlining the naturalization process to decrease the numbers of noncitizens or limiting the entrance of legal immigrants.

State may lose U.S. House seat
'Immigrant' states would gain as Michigan loses clout in possible reapportionment.
By Dina El Boghdady
The Detroit News, October 7, 1998; p. C1

WASHINGTON — Michigan could lose one of its 16 U.S. House seats — perhaps in Metro Detroit — by 2000 as an influx of foreigners boosts the populations of immigrant-rich states and dilutes the political clout of others.

A study released Tuesday by the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration, predicts that slow population growth in Michigan and four other states will cost them congressional seats.

That's because the Constitution requires reapportioning the 435 U.S. House seats after each U.S. Census determines state populations — including citizens and immigrants, many of whom are not eligible to vote.

"Michigan is losing a seat in the House so that new districts can be carved out in high immigration states composed of noncitizens," said Steven Camarota, the study's co-author. "American citizens in Michigan are losing representation so that noncitizens can have representation in Congress."

Patricia Becker, a demographer in Detroit, agrees that Michigan will lose one of its House seats because of its low growth rate. Population patterns in the state will help determine which seat must go, she said.

"Right now, Detroit with several suburbs, has two seats," Becker said. "I don't think there is much question that Detroit will continue to have two seats. But there will probably be more suburban area added to them."

Ultimately, the decision will be political. If a seat is cut, the state Legislature must decide how to reapportion districts — which include about 570,000 people each. The issue goes to the Michigan Supreme Court if the Legislature cannot agree.

The study concluded that Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will lose one seat while Kentucky and Colorado will fail to gain a new seat because of recent immigration patterns.

But California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Illinois — home to 75 percent of the nation's immigrants —will pick up or maintain seats even though the number of eligible voters in those states is low, the study said.

In Michigan, for example, voter turnout in a typical district is about 226,000, Camarota said. Only about 50,000 voters turn out in some California districts because so many people there are not eligible to vote, he said. As a result, it can take fewer votes to elect a representative in those districts.

Numbers of Seats Each State has in House of Representatives Affected by Immigrants, both Legal and Illegal
CBS News, The Osgood File, October 7, 1998

THE OSGOOD FILE, sponsored in part by Northwest Airlines and by Snorp. I'm Charles Osgood.

The way the House of Representatives is apportioned has nothing to do with how much money there is in a district but how many people live there. Not how many taxpayers, but how many people. Not how many American citizens, but how many people. Not how many are here legally, but how many are here. All you have to do to affect the strength of a district's representation in Congress is just be there and be counted. And that's why, in determining the redistribution of House seats and which states will come out ahead or behind, one significant factor is immigration, legal and illegal.

More about that subject after this for Northwest Airlines.

(Announcements)

OSGOOD: The 435 seats in the House of Representatives are redistributed every 10 years based on changes in the population. The Census Bureau counts all residents, including non-citizens and illegal aliens, in determining the population. Eight hundred thousand to 900,000 legal immigrants arrive every year, and the Immigration & Naturalization Service estimates that another 420,000 illegal aliens enter the country, too.

Three out of four of those immigrants, legal and illegal, settle in six of the 50 states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey and Illinois. As a consequence, after the census in 1990, California got four new seats in the House, New York picked up one and Florida one, but Louisiana, Michigan, Montana and Ohio lost seats and Georgia and Kentucky didn't gain seats they otherwise would have gained.

Now the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that worries about such things, has come out with a study estimating that California will get five more seats after the census in the year 2000. New York will gain another one, as will Florida and Texas, but Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will lose a seat and Colorado and Kentucky will be deprived of new seats solely because of immigration.

The center has advocated putting more limits on immigration. Executive director Mark Krikorian says there is a distortion of the political system in which seats are taken away from citizens and reallocated, in effect, to non-citizens. James Gimple, a University of Maryland associate professor who's an expert on immigration issues, says the immigrants who are legal and do vote vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so it will mean more safe seats in Congress for the Democrats, which the Democrats like, of course, and Republicans don't. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more immigrants there are, the more Democrats there are. If the Democrats are seen as pro-immigration and Republicans as anti-immigration, the immigration groups will be pro-Democrat and anti-Republican.