When Borders Blur Power Shifts

The broader argument against open borders is that undocumented immigrants will vote for one political party over another. This argument is specious. Even among those with the legal right to vote, participation usually hinges on a strong sense of self-interest in the outcome.

So what would compel someone living on the edge of immigration enforcement to risk voting illegally? On rare occasions, some might, but the overwhelming majority do not. Yet, simply being present in the country is enough to shift the political landscape—because in politics, numbers matter.

The U.S. Census Bureau counts every person residing in the United States, regardless of immigration status. This includes citizens, legal residents, visa overstays, and undocumented immigrants. The population data collected during the decennial census determines how the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states. This process ensures that congressional representation reflects population changes and shifts across the country. Simply put, more people equates to more representation.

Additionally, this population data affects how district boundaries are drawn for state legislatures and local governments, influencing political power and the distribution of resources. So, if you’re a high-tax, poorly managed state losing citizens to more people-friendly ones, one strategy is to declare your jurisdiction a sanctuary. That way, you offset population losses by attracting undocumented immigrants.

Apportionment of federal funds also depends on census data. The more people you count, the more federal money you get.

There are legal and ethical concerns about including undocumented immigrants in the census. Critics argue that counting those residing in the country unlawfully distorts population figures. They contend that only legal residents and citizens should be counted, to ensure that data reflects the lawful population.

Comprehensive census data guides research and policymaking. Critics fear that including undocumented immigrants could skew understandings of demographic trends, economic conditions, and social issues—leading to policy decisions that don’t reflect the needs of citizens.

Make no mistake: no amount of immigration enforcement or mass deportation can reverse this situation. There are simply too many undocumented individuals to remove.

I can’t pinpoint which group of decision-makers initiated the open-border policies, but the result was a masterstroke in political strategy. The party that advocates for sanctuary cities and states now benefits from increased congressional representation and more federal funding. It’s easy to see why there’s little motivation in sanctuary jurisdictions to deport what has effectively become a political and financial cash cow.

________________________________

Geoffrey Robinson is a published author who also writes for magazines and blogs. He retired from the military with multiple combat tours and then spent a career in the contract industry. He’s spent years living in Asia, Europe, and time in the Middle East, and South America. Geoffrey is an avid marathon runner who has competed in races from Anchorage to Cairo. He affectionally calls Dun Laoghaire, Ireland home. He currently lives in Maryland to be close to his children and grandchildren.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.