After expressing general outrage that he was able to defeat their chosen candidate, Democrat Hillary Clinton, their attitude turned towards anger and defiance: They have pledged, for instance, to oppose his efforts to enforce immigration laws by deporting those who are in our country illegally, and by cutting off federal assistance to California’s many “sanctuary cities.”
None of this is surprising, given that the Golden State has been ruled by one political party for decades and is about as far-Left as it gets when it comes to ideology. But that said, what about these sanctuary cities? What about the vast number of illegal aliens who reside in California?
State lawmakers and activists have decried the fact that Clinton won the popular vote but did not manage to capture enough Electoral College votes (270) to claim victory. It is believed that all of her popular vote margin came from California. Her huge victory in the state gave her all of its 54 electoral votes as well.
She is up by more than 2 million, at last count, in the popular vote, and nearly all of that margin came from California—the state with the highest population of illegal aliens (2.4 million).
Here’s the thing about that: The U.S. Census Bureau counts illegal aliens as part of the 10-year census that is then used to apportion the number of House seats in Congress to each state. That is important because each state’s Electoral College votes are aligned with the number of congressional districts they have.
So in other words, some states (like California) have outsized apportionment (and, thus, outsized Electoral College votes) because they have large illegal immigrant populations.
Even if people here illegally cannot vote in federal elections, the mere fact that they are counted as part of the U.S. Census that is then used to apportion House seats and electoral votes gives states with high illegal immigrant populations more say in deciding who should be president than they should have.
That means if anything, California’s entire Electoral College tally should be discarded because it is artificially inflated.
And if that were to happen, not only would Trump would have won even bigger than he did over Clinton, it would mean that high illegal immigrant states would no longer have more of a say in governing the country than they are supposed to have.
By comparison, the state of Texas, as of 2010, had about 1.8 million illegal aliens. And though Trump won there by a wide 9-point margin, his victory was only about 800,000 votes—so you could make the same argument that the state’s electoral votes are outsized.
But the bluest parts of the state are home to the most illegal immigrants; if they weren’t in Texas (or the country), perhaps those districts would not be in Democratic hands. There are all sorts of possibilities.
The fact remains that anyone in the country illegally is in violation of established U.S. law. They are violating congressional will. They are thumbing their nose at our legal system and our Constitution. They have no inherent right to be here, and the U.S. has every legal right to make its own immigration rules. That includes, by the way, allowing open borders someday or giving all persons, citizen or not, the right to vote.
That hasn’t happened yet and isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. Before it does, however, we will likely undergo yet another census (2020). If we really want a true representation of American citizens in Washington, D.C.—and we want our presidential electors to reflect the true citizenry—then perhaps President Trump and Congress will address this statutory loophole before then.
Until that time, Democratic presidential nominees who win California ought to be thankful they are getting an added electoral boost they don’t really deserve.