fishbane Posted June 4 Posted June 4 On 6/3/2025 at 11:07 AM, Husker_Du said: Texas and Florida are gaining electoral college votes. Blue states (including California and NY) are losing them for 2028. Apportionment happens the year after a census. The last census was performed in 2020. Aportionment was done in 2021 and redistricting after that. The new congressional districts did not take effect until the 2022 election. You posted projections for the 2030 census. These are projections as 2030 is 5 years from now. If these prove to be accurate they would not take effect until the 2032 election not 2028.
jross Posted June 4 Posted June 4 It depends on how many illegal immigrants were added in the past few years and what a realistic estimate is. I've read that if the estimates are 20M in 2024 and 30M by 2030, it adds 5-7 seats to Democrats while taking away 3-5 seats for Republicans. Higher if you include children born to illegals. math applied to https://cis.org/Report/Tilting-Balance If and when illegals or their children can vote, the US becomes a one-party nanny state. More nanny = more illegal immigration = more nanny = more illegal immigration...
JimmySpeaks Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 2 hours ago, fishbane said: There are differences based on the estimates for number of illegal immigrants in each state. So since you disagree that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from this, which party benefits and how much? One study says it’s a wash while the other says plus one for democrats. So the data we have in front of us would show that red states didn’t benefit while blue states most likely did.
JimmySpeaks Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 The question being asked should be which party didn’t benefit? That we know the answer to.
JimmySpeaks Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 2 hours ago, fishbane said: I also read the article where you found that figure. Here is the last paragraph you may have missed. "We have avoided using terms like “replacement theory,” “racism,” and “xenophobia” to describe the views of Elon Musk and others who have been promoting the view that illegal immigration is a deliberate plot to dilute red state power, though we could have. But we are not avoiding the word “wrong.” Their analysis and their conclusions about illegal immigration and apportionment are simply wrong." Ummmmmm I found the data.
Offthemat Posted June 4 Posted June 4 Just like elections, it depends on who does the counting. The 2020 Census: According to the PES, which states had undercounts? Arkansas (-5.04), Florida (-3.48), Illinois (-1.97), Mississippi (-4.11), Tennessee (-4.78), and Texas (-1.92). And overcounts? Delaware (+5.45), Hawaii (+6.79), Massachusetts (+2.24), Minnesota (+3.84), New York (+3.44), Ohio (+1.49), Rhode Island (+5.05), and Utah (+2.59) https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/2020-census-undercount-overcount-rates-by-state.html
fishbane Posted June 4 Posted June 4 38 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Just like elections, it depends on who does the counting. So when the count was performed in 2020 under the Trump administration the Census Bureau ostensibly underestimated the population of Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas and overestimated the population of Hawaii, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts. This was discovered by the Census bureau in 2022 operating under the Biden administration via the Post Enumeration Study. What does this say about who does the counting?
fishbane Posted June 4 Posted June 4 1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said: One study says it’s a wash while the other says plus one for democrats. So the data we have in front of us would show that red states didn’t benefit while blue states most likely did. Supposing the net effect of apportionment was a wash - no net benefit for either party within the measurement uncertainty. What would you expect two independent assessments to come up with? If there is a high degree of confidence in the population numbers both of total residents and illegal immigrants in each state then they should come up with the same answer, but there is a fairly large uncertainly attached to the illegal immigrant count so they might differ, but the answers would be consistent within the uncertainty of each analysis. 1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said: Ummmmmm I found the data. Not really. You found two tables of conclusions based on data and ignored the one that showed no net change. A more even handed assessment of the results would be exactly what I said earlier that is unclear that either party benefited or a possible slight benefit for the blue states. A gain of 1 seat is a very marginal and less than what is typically accomplished through other political manipulation in the process such as gerrymandering.
JimmySpeaks Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 52 minutes ago, fishbane said: Supposing the net effect of apportionment was a wash - no net benefit for either party within the measurement uncertainty. What would you expect two independent assessments to come up with? If there is a high degree of confidence in the population numbers both of total residents and illegal immigrants in each state then they should come up with the same answer, but there is a fairly large uncertainly attached to the illegal immigrant count so they might differ, but the answers would be consistent within the uncertainty of each analysis. Not really. You found two tables of conclusions based on data and ignored the one that showed no net change. A more even handed assessment of the results would be exactly what I said earlier that is unclear that either party benefited or a possible slight benefit for the blue states. A gain of 1 seat is a very marginal and less than what is typically accomplished through other political manipulation in the process such as gerrymandering. Again. We know which party for sure didn’t benefit.
fishbane Posted June 4 Posted June 4 3 hours ago, jross said: It depends on how many illegal immigrants were added in the past few years and what a realistic estimate is. I've read that if the estimates are 20M in 2024 and 30M by 2030, it adds 5-7 seats to Democrats while taking away 3-5 seats for Republicans. Higher if you include children born to illegals. math applied to https://cis.org/Report/Tilting-Balance Estimating the number of illegal immigrants definitely is the difficult bit. I am not seeing the numbers you quote for illegal immigrants at the link you provided. It's fairly confusing though since they have a bunch of numbers for total immigrants, non citizen immigrants, and illegal immigrants. Using the numbers in table 2 including minor children of immigrants (presumably citizens), I see +4 seats net for blue states in 2030, -2 in the battleground states, and -2 in red states. Looking at the section on the 2030 estimates it reads Quote Estimating the Impact of Illegal Immigration in 2030. We use the same 2030 baseline apportionment populations described above when we estimate the impact of all immigrants. For illegal immigrants, our preliminary estimate for the first quarter of each year from 2021 to 2024 are as follows: 10.0 million in 2021, 11.2 million in 2022, 12.3 million in 2023, and 13.6 million in 2024. (This is our best estimate of only illegal immigrants captured in Census Bureau data, not the total size of the illegal immigrant population.) If we project this growth rate out to the first part of 2030 using a linear function, we get a total illegal population of 20.7 million. We then distribute this total across states, again using a surrogate population.12 For the U.S.-born minor children of illegal immigrants in 2030 we use the state distribution of the illegal immigrant population in 2030 discussed above and then also assume that the ratio of U.S.-born minor children is the same as in 2024. So that says 13.6M illegal immigrants in 2024 and 20.7M in 2030, but that 2030 number uses a linear extrapolation of the 2021-2024 trend, but obviously something changed in 2025. This is less of a projection and more of a what if the current trend continues, which they say in another footnote. 3 hours ago, jross said: If and when illegals or their children can vote, the US becomes a one-party nanny state. More nanny = more illegal immigration = more nanny = more illegal immigration... This is based in assumptions that I fund to be dubious. It is assumes that illegal immigrants will vote Democrat by a large enough margin to move the vote nanny. That may not be the case. Ostensibly the only policy point this group of people (illegal immigrants) should be united on is immigration. If immigration policy suddenly became the thing that cost Republicans elections they would adjust their position to become more competitive. Immigration isn't inherently a liberal or conservative issue. Some people in this thread said the immigration reform bill proposed by Democrats last year and sunk by Republicans was only done to compete with Trump on this issue in the election. If there was an advantage to be gained in the future by being pro-immigration because large numbers of illegal immigrants gained voting rights and this issue was important to them we would see a similar adjustment by Republicans. If the nanny policies of the Democratic party are as disastrous as the Trump administration makes them sounds then the nanny state should not be able to last for very long. As things fail Republicans should be able to use these failures to sway voters to their side. This assumes not only that illegal immigrants will vote preferentially for Democrats, but that this voting preference will be maintained by the progeny of the illegal immigrants. This is speculative since political party affiliation often differs between parent and child. There are many generations of immigrants living in this country right now and the Republican party has not had trouble convincing enough of their progeny to maintain a competitive landscape with the Democrats up to this point. They will adjust as needed to do the same in the future. I don't think the Republican party really believes that this is actually the plan of Democrats. They are more using it to try and consolidate support behind their immigration policy. Scare other Republicans into thinking this is a more important issue than it actually is. If they were really afraid of the eventuality of nanny state tyranny as a result of immigrants tilting the balance, then why would Trump be so keen to add 40M Canadians and another 60k Greenlanders to the US voting population? Both constituencies are more liberal than US voters. If this ultimately benefits Democrats I believe such benefits are incidental to their policy and not the result of some decades long plan to replace voters with immigrants. It would take to long to get any payoff and politicians are more short sighted. They have to be with election cycles every 2-6 years.
Offthemat Posted June 4 Posted June 4 4 hours ago, fishbane said: What does this say about who does the counting? That they are primarily dimocrats - incapable and/or dishonest.
Bigbrog Posted June 5 Posted June 5 I'm going to guess that fishbane and scrouge are either brothers or cousins based on the tendency to post long drawn-out responses; however, fishbane is definitely the more mature levelheaded one. 1
jross Posted June 5 Posted June 5 On 6/4/2025 at 4:15 PM, fishbane said: Estimating the number of illegal immigrants definitely is the difficult bit. I am not seeing the numbers you quote for illegal immigrants at the link you provided. Agreed. I went to 20M based off "Well, first of all, how many illegal aliens, I think, are in the United States? At least 20 million. Here's a—where'd you count that number? We've been speaking about 12 million for 20 years. We know we got 10.5 [million] that we know of came to the border. How many don't we know of? I talk about known gotaways at 2 million. How many unknown gotaways we have, like, between the Big Bend sector in Texas where there's no technology? How many thousand people, they cross, are there? We wouldn't know. We would know now, but, you know, so I would venture over 20 million." Tom Homan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Me5LQKwqY&ab_channel=TheWashingtonExaminer. Although some immigrants are missed by government surveys, our preliminary estimate is that there are 15.4 million illegal immigrants in the January 2025 CPS, an increase of more than 50 percent (5.4 million) over the last four years in the survey. https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Number-and-Share-US-Population-AllTime-Highs-January-2025 As of June 2023, FAIR estimates that approximately 16.8 million illegal aliens reside in the United States. https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/2023 Illegal Alien Population Estimate_2.pdf
jross Posted June 5 Posted June 5 On 6/4/2025 at 4:15 PM, fishbane said: It is assumes that illegal immigrants will vote Democrat by a large enough margin to move the vote nanny. That may not be the case. The Hispanic illegal immigration group will largely favor Democrats in census and eventually voting. These are not Cubans... On 6/4/2025 at 4:15 PM, fishbane said: Ostensibly the only policy point this group of people (illegal immigrants) should be united on is immigration. If immigration policy suddenly became the thing that cost Republicans elections they would adjust their position to become more competitive. Immigration isn't inherently a liberal or conservative issue. Some people in this thread said the immigration reform bill proposed by Democrats last year and sunk by Republicans was only done to compete with Trump on this issue in the election. If there was an advantage to be gained in the future by being pro-immigration because large numbers of illegal immigrants gained voting rights and this issue was important to them we would see a similar adjustment by Republicans. I agree. And IMO, it would be unfortunate if political parties increasingly compete by pandering to noncitizens for future electoral advantage. On 6/4/2025 at 4:15 PM, fishbane said: If the nanny policies of the Democratic party are as disastrous as the Trump administration makes them sounds then the nanny state should not be able to last for very long. As things fail Republicans should be able to use these failures to sway voters to their side. Agree in theory. In practice the nanny policies will last decades or centuries. On 6/4/2025 at 4:15 PM, fishbane said: I don't think the Republican party really believes that this is actually the plan of Democrats. I independently suspected that Democratic arguments for opposing voter ID and their immigration policies, combined with high immigration numbers, are driven by strategic electoral motives. On 6/4/2025 at 4:15 PM, fishbane said: If they were really afraid of the eventuality of nanny state tyranny as a result of immigrants tilting the balance, then why would Trump be so keen to add 40M Canadians and another 60k Greenlanders to the US voting population? Both constituencies are more liberal than US voters. This is a great point. I was stumped over Trump for exactly the logical reasons you stated. I landed on it being rhetorical to project strength and economic dominance. I never thought it seriously would happen.
JimmySpeaks Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 10 minutes ago, jross said: The Hispanic illegal immigration group will largely favor Democrats in census and eventually voting. These are not Cubans... I agree. And IMO, it would be unfortunate if political parties increasingly compete by pandering to noncitizens for future electoral advantage. Agree in theory. In practice the nanny policies will last decades or centuries. I independently suspected that Democratic arguments for opposing voter ID and their immigration policies, combined with high immigration numbers, are driven by strategic electoral motives. This is a great point. I was stumped over Trump for exactly the logical reasons you stated. I landed on it being rhetorical to project strength and economic dominance. I never thought it seriously would happen. I’m guessing it would be a while before Canada would gain statehood. Same set up as Puerto Rico. I also don’t believe Canada would be one state.
scourge165 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 On 6/4/2025 at 8:36 AM, Offthemat said: McConnell appointed Lankford so he could stay out of the limelight. And yes, Lankford was threatened, and continues to be in hot water for his re-election chances. Again, we didn’t need a bill, we just needed a new president. And now it’s been solved. Not 4000, more like 4. Sure...it was a McConnell Bill(A hero of the Republicans by the way) because he appointed Lankford. Strange that the Republicans supported the Bill until Trump came out and explicitly said it'd hurt him in the election... If you don't get the bill, Trump doesn't get to run on the border.
scourge165 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 4 hours ago, jross said: As of June 2023, FAIR estimates that approximately 16.8 million illegal aliens reside in the United States. https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/2023 Illegal Alien Population Estimate_2.pdf 1. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Founded in 1979 by John Tanton, the Federation for American Immigration Reform is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for significant reductions in both legal and illegal immigration to the United States. FAIR's stated objectives include reducing overall immigration to 300,000 a year over a sustained period and opposing policies like birthright citizenship and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The organization engages in lobbying efforts and public campaigns to influence U.S. immigration policy. splcenter.org+4ballotpedia.org+4loc.gov+4bridge.georgetown.edu FAIR has been a subject of controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated it as a hate group, citing its ties to white supremacist ideologies and its efforts to severely limit immigration into the United States. mediabiasfactcheck.com+1splcenter.org+1
Offthemat Posted June 6 Posted June 6 11 minutes ago, scourge165 said: If you don't get the bill, Trump doesn't get to run on the border. Shut up. 1
scourge165 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 7 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Shut up. Don't like that one? Blame Trump, not me. By the way, you quoted PART of that video in reposting Bennie Johnson, just one of the guys who took millions from Russia. Who's next? Tim Pool, Dave Rubin?
Offthemat Posted June 6 Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, scourge165 said: Don't like that one? Over your head, huh?
scourge165 Posted June 6 Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Over your head, huh? Yup. "Shut up," is over my head...
fishbane Posted June 10 Posted June 10 On 6/5/2025 at 6:16 PM, jross said: Agreed. I went to 20M based off "Well, first of all, how many illegal aliens, I think, are in the United States? At least 20 million. Here's a—where'd you count that number? We've been speaking about 12 million for 20 years. We know we got 10.5 [million] that we know of came to the border. How many don't we know of? I talk about known gotaways at 2 million. How many unknown gotaways we have, like, between the Big Bend sector in Texas where there's no technology? How many thousand people, they cross, are there? We wouldn't know. We would know now, but, you know, so I would venture over 20 million." Tom Homan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Me5LQKwqY&ab_channel=TheWashingtonExaminer. Although some immigrants are missed by government surveys, our preliminary estimate is that there are 15.4 million illegal immigrants in the January 2025 CPS, an increase of more than 50 percent (5.4 million) over the last four years in the survey. https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Number-and-Share-US-Population-AllTime-Highs-January-2025 As of June 2023, FAIR estimates that approximately 16.8 million illegal aliens reside in the United States. https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/2023 Illegal Alien Population Estimate_2.pdf It's a difficult task to estimate the number of illegal immigrants. I understand the border Tsar's skepticism that the number of illegal immigrants has been flat at 12 million for so long (since 2007), but I am perhaps more skeptical of his number. The Trump administration has at times decided to make up a number or misrepresent things when it suits them (2017 inauguration attendant, DOGE with the Social Security database, etc.) and the trend he cites was created by an independent agency over multiple different administrations. Nevertheless it could be more than 14M.
fishbane Posted June 10 Posted June 10 On 6/5/2025 at 6:59 PM, JimmySpeaks said: I’m guessing it would be a while before Canada would gain statehood. Same set up as Puerto Rico. I also don’t believe Canada would be one state. This is an unserious suggestion. Why would Canada join if they weren't granted voting rights? Is a democracy with ~43M unable to vote in the presidential election and without meaningful representation in the legislature actually a democracy? The answer must be no.
fishbane Posted June 10 Posted June 10 On 6/5/2025 at 6:46 PM, jross said: The Hispanic illegal immigration group will largely favor Democrats in census and eventually voting. These are not Cubans... Illegal immigrants as a whole lean democrat. By how much and how large of an impact would that have an federal elections is the relevant question. Nationwide Harris won the latino vote by only a 51-46% margin and Trump had some degree of success winning over latino voters even in very blue states like NY, where he was able to get 36% of the vote. The illegal immigrant population has proportionally more men than the voting population and men more often vote republican than women. The path to citizenship and voting rights for illegal immigrants is a long one. The average voter that immigrated illegally is likely to be older and thus also more likely to vote Republican. If we imagine the population of illegal immigrants that eventually gain citizenship/voting rights Trump would probably do somewhat better than the 36% we saw in NY in 2024. Finally the states with the largest illegal immigrant populations are either border states or blue states with sanctuary cities. These are either solidly red or solidly blue making the impact to the electoral college vote less significant. On 6/5/2025 at 6:46 PM, jross said: I agree. And IMO, it would be unfortunate if political parties increasingly compete by pandering to noncitizens for future electoral advantage. I think there would be no advantage to pander to noncitizens hoping that in the future they might gain the right to vote. All things being equal such a plan would be at a disadvantage to a candidate pandering to current voters instead. A change in Republican policy would only happen if enough illegal immigrants became citizens/voters that it makes sense to change pandering. On 6/5/2025 at 6:46 PM, jross said: Agree in theory. In practice the nanny policies will last decades or centuries. The impact of bad policies can far outlast a term, but this happens as things stands right now. Republicans will be blaming issues on Biden's disastrous policies for years. The eventuality of the theory that Democrats are importing voters is supposed to be much worse - Republicans will not be able to win a presidential election ever again. That doesn't seem sustainable. Voting for change when things are not going well is a powerful thing. On 6/5/2025 at 6:46 PM, jross said: This is a great point. I was stumped over Trump for exactly the logical reasons you stated. I landed on it being rhetorical to project strength and economic dominance. I never thought it seriously would happen. I don't think it will happen either. It could be worth it for the country regardless of which party it benefits electorally. The US would be the largest country by area. There is a huge amount of natural resources in Canada.
Tyler Fromm Trinty-Pawling, New York Class of 2025 Committed to Franklin & Marshall Projected Weight: 165
Sloane Kruger Black Hills, Washington Class of 2025 Committed to Presbyterian (Women) Projected Weight: 110
Elliza Brunner Copper Hills, Utah Class of 2025 Committed to Providence (Women) Projected Weight: 117, 124
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now