fishbane

Elon Musk? I don't like him, don't care for him, never did. I would guess the BBB was made available to Musk before it was introduced in the house and just like most of the house reps that voted for it he didn't read the 1,000+ page tome. Now he knows what's in it and he isn't happy.

Probably hasn't changed much since March.

It should be something they take seriously. It's been a while since I organized a USAW chartered club, but the insurance coverage included with club membership used to include coverage for sexual abuse and molestation claims and a requirement of that coverage was that all club coach's had USAW coach's cards and background checks. If they have coaches/administrators working with the kids that didn't go through the back ground screening then they aren't covered.

Here is the section of the USAW background check policy where it says who needs them "USA Wrestling has mandatory background screening as an extension of USA Wrestling’s Safe Sport Policy for the purpose of determining eligibility for USA Wrestling member coaches, officials and state association national or regional team volunteer members, and anyone who is authorized to be in a position of authority over or has regular contact with athletes." It sounds like this individual would be required to get a background screening. Not all charges/offenses would make him/her ineligible to participate. Here is the section on that. Even if this person has one of these it may have popped up in the screening and went through the process to "determine the individual's level of access" whatever that is.

Everyone with a USAW coaches card gets a background check every two years. So everyone should if involved at all with the state fargo team. If this individual will be coaching on the floor in Fargo then definitely.

Crazy how quickly he is potentially coming out the other side of this.

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 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. 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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

Oh back to the burner account. Sure possibly Democrats gained 1 seat in the last apportionment which all hinges on whether there are more illegal immigrants in NY or Florida. Doesnt seem all that clear to me that there was any benefit. But was this really a plan by the Democrats coming to fruition to steal a seat? This data is from the 2020 census. When did these illegal immigrants get here? Can't really blame Biden's administration.

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?

The number of seats is capped so there isn't really aren't "extra" seats. It's how the seats get distributed could change. For a state to gain a seat due to the population of illegal immigrants in that state another state would lose a seat because of a lack of of illegal immigrants. You'd have to look at the political make up of the state and gaining the seat vs the state losing a seat to try and determine which party benefits. Current apportionment is ~750,000 people = 1 house seat. Every state has illegal immigrants but only a few have enough to equal a house seat. A couple different organization we through this analysis for the 2020 census which gets apportioned and redistricted for elections starting in 2022. Here is the Pew analysis from 2020.

Keep not answering the question - it only supports my assertion that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from illegal immigration. If that were untrue then you should be able to answer the question. Yet you cannot answer that question. So... We agree!

We are in agreement! If you cannot answer the question "which party gains seats/votes through apportionment due to the distribution of illegal immigrants across all 50 state?" then we are in agreement.

Go back to your burner account and answer the question I asked. Which party benefits through apportionment gaining extra seats/electoral votes due to illegal immigrants?

If you are unable to answer the question which party benefits from illegal immigrants through apportionment by gaining extra congressional seat(s)/electoral vote(s) then maybe we are in agreement after all that it's unclear.

Back to the burner account? Which party do you think gains seat(s)/electoral vote(s) through apportionment because of illegal immigrants? And how many seats/votes are gained?

And you have presented any evidence to argue with. If you want me to argue with myself - no thanks. You can do that with your other account lol.

When I said we I was talking about me and JimmySpeaks not you. Unless you're just signed into the wrong account...

Yes 45 more. What is the point? I thought we agreed that it is unclear that illegal immigrants benefit apportionment in favour of one party or the other.

I think that's accurate. Similarly, I believe that the Democrats' immigration policy had more short terms objectives. It wasn't a long terms master plan to import residents to shift apportionment in their favour over the next census. It also wasn't a plan to import illegal immigrants that would in the following decades either become citizens and/or have kids that would be citizens who would vote preferentially for the Democratic party. This is a plan that couldn't come up with a coherent strategy for the last presidential election they weren't executing a master plan with a 10-30 year horizon that could be thwarted by a fleet of buses.

So your point was that it is unclear which party will benefit from this. I also find this confusing. My understanding is that recently it has been the democrats credited with allowing illegal border crossings. Under the two Trump terms there has been increased enforcement at the border whereas Biden allocated resources differently allowing significantly more border crossings. However, regarding busing of illegal immigrants, I thought was a program run by Republican governors in border states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida where they paid for busses to take undocumented immigrants to the city of their choice. In practice these were always "sanctuary cities" in blue areas such as New York, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, DC. So it would seem to me that one party letting them in (Democrats) and another party busing them around (Republicans). If the net effect of the illegal immigrants is extra electoral votes/representation in congress for Democrats then perhaps those Republican Governors were wrong to bus the migrants to the blue states. Instead if the population growth in the border states results in more Republicans in Congress and Florida and Texas gaining electoral votes they wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps Democrats will see their liberal immigration policy as a mistake. Which party is sinister and power hungry? The one that let them in or the one that bused them to their final destination?

I don't think this is true though I am not sure what you are trying to say. From the last census the number of illegal immigrants in NY, Texas, and Florida has increased. Of the states you mentioned I think only CA has seen a decrease in illegal immigrant residents. NY has lost population even with the increase in illegal immigrants in the state. It is unclear which political party these shifts will benefit. Florida and Texas gain seats/electoral votes, however their population gain is not explained entirely by illegal immigrants who cannot vote in federal elections. Much of the increase comes from US citizens moving out of states like NY and CA and are presumably less likely to vote for a republican candidate than the existing population in these states.