States owe extra congressional seats to Hispanics

[FR7 Baptist]

The eight states that gained seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as a result of the 2010 Census, among them Texas, Florida and Arizona, owe the extra political clout to their growing Hispanic populations, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials says.

In South Carolina, which gained one seat, the number of Latinos grew by 117.5 percent, while the non-Hispanic population grew by only 11.2 percent, according to a study released Tuesday by the NALEO Educational Fund.

The contribution of Hispanics to increasing states' representation in Congress should translate into more representation for Latinos as well, NALEO Executive Director Arturo Vargas said at a press conference in Washington.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...-congressional-seats-hispanics/#ixzz1DWjInm4D

 

[targus]

When you say increase in Hispanics - are you talking illegal immigrants?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

When you say increase in Hispanics - are you talking illegal immigrants?

I am not sure whether this administration even looked at the Citizenship block on the forms if a minority was checked...

Then, again, why would an illegal fill out a form or talk to a census taker and admit they are an illegal?

This PC madness, for sure...

 

[matt wade]

Wait a second....we are supposed to treat everyone equally and not pay attention to race, skin color, etc. Yet every time I turn around some minority group is drawing attention to their race, skin color, etc.

I'm confused. Maybe you can straighten me out Paul?

 

[billwald]

The day of the WASP in the US is over. It is a new world out there.

 

[Baptist Believer]

When you say increase in Hispanics - are you talking illegal immigrants?

I'm sure there are some illegals in the mix, but the legal (and native born) Hispanic population is growing rapidly. In several states, including Texas, Hispanics comprise the largest ethnic group in the state, outnumbering the so-called "majority" white ethnicity.

We also need to consider that the definition of "Hispanic" is fluid and inclusive, so there's a number of different ethnic backgrounds represented in the category.

Overall, Hispanic (or Latino) people have occupied these lands since long before the U.S. was founded and continue to make important contributions to our society.

So yes, I believe the increase in the number of Hispanics has played a large role in broadening the influence of the states in which they reside, but they should be represented on an equal footing with every other U.S. citizen instead of having districts gerrymandered in order to achieve a certain ethnicity of elected official, whether that be Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, African-American, Native American, etc.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Wait a second....we are supposed to treat everyone equally and not pay attention to race, skin color, etc. Yet every time I turn around some minority group is drawing attention to their race, skin color, etc.

I'm confused. Maybe you can straighten me out Paul?

You don't know what it's like to be quasi-Hispanic. For example, if I had applied myself in high school, I could have qualified for a Hispanic scholarship even though I don't speak Spanish and have a non-Spanish, common surname.

 

[targus]

You don't know what it's like to be quasi-Hispanic. For example, if I had applied myself in high school, I could have qualified for a Hispanic scholarship even though I don't speak Spanish and have a non-Spanish, common surname.

Paul, you worked as a census taker.

What percentage of the increase in Hispanics is due to illegal immigration?

How many of the Hispanics that were counted are illegal immigrants?

 

[Jerome]

Congressional apportionment is based on population without regard to citizenship or eligibility to vote; this produces "rotten" districts with relatively few actual voters.

In Nov. 2010 there were fourteen districts where the total vote cast was less than 100K, and many were won with less than 50K votes:

AZ-04 Ed Pastor(D) won with 62K votes
CA-20 Jim Costa(D) won with 46K votes
CA-31 Xavier Becerra(D) won with 76K votes
CA-34 Lucille Roybal-Allard(D) won with 69K votes
CA-47 Loretta Sanchez(D) won with 51K votes
IL-04 Luis Gutierrez(D) won with 63K votes
NJ-13 Albio Sires(D) won with 63K votes
NY-07 Joseph Crowley(D) won with 71K votes
NY-12 Nydia Velasquez(D) won with 69K votes
NY-16 Jose Serrano(D) won with 62K votes
TX-15 Ruben Hinojosa(D) won with 54K votes
TX-16 Silvestre Reyes(D) won with 49K votes
TX-20 Charles Gonzalez(D) won with 59K votes
TX-29 Gene Green(D) won with 43K votes

Many, many congressional candidates lost their races getting more votes than these "winners" did.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Paul, you worked as a census taker.

What percentage of the increase in Hispanics is due to illegal immigration?

How many of the Hispanics that were counted are illegal immigrants?

How would I know if they are illegal? One time I was pretty suspicious when I came across an apartment with seven non-white Hispanics, none of whom spoke English. However, Census employees aren't allowed to ask about immigration status, and even if we find out for sure we are required by Title 13 to keep it a secret under penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

 

[targus]

How would I know if they are illegal? One time I was pretty suspicious when I came across an apartment with seven non-white Hispanics, none of whom spoke English. However, Census employees aren't allowed to ask about immigration status, and even if we find out for sure we are required by Title 13 to keep it a secret under penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

So some unknown number of the additional Congressional seats may be due to illegal immigration?

Sounds like a formula for disaster.

 

[rbell]

The eight states that gained seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as a result of the 2010 Census, among them Texas, Florida and Arizona, owe the extra political clout to their growing Hispanic populations, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials says.

In South Carolina, which gained one seat, the number of Latinos grew by 117.5 percent, while the non-Hispanic population grew by only 11.2 percent, according to a study released Tuesday by the NALEO Educational Fund.

The contribution of Hispanics to increasing states' representation in Congress should translate into more representation for Latinos as well, NALEO Executive Director Arturo Vargas said at a press conference in Washington.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...-congressional-seats-hispanics/#ixzz1DWjInm4D

Well of course this guy (NALEO or whatever it is) is going to say that! He wants everyone to know he's important...so he can get a government job, contract, or appointment.

Besides that...percentages mean nothing. Numbers do.

Example: Let's say your finding out how many left-handed native Elbonians live in Walla Walla. In 2000, there was 4. In 2010, there were 40.

That's a 1,000% increase!!! Elbonians for Congress!
Wait...that's only 36 more people. Never mind.

Lies...cotton' pickin' lies...(yeah, an edit. If I don't Blackbird will...)...and statistics.

 

[Alcott]

The contribution of Hispanics to increasing states' representation in Congress should translate into more representation for Latinos as well, NALEO Executive Director Arturo Vargas said at a press conference in Washington.

Am I correct in assuming you posted this because you agree with it? If so, and the increase in hispanic population should mean more hispanic representatives in Congress, then do you vote only for candidates of your own color/nationality/ethnicity, or is this based on a false premise?

 

[Salty]

...In Nov. 2010 there were fourteen districts where the total vote cast was less than 100K, and many were won with less than 50K votes: ...

For what it is worth - Since NYC is highly Democrat - when the lines are drawn they are less than the average number of residents - ( I believe a district can be +/- 3%) that way NYC gets more Congressional districts than the more Republican Upstaters - who districts are normally on the + side of the 3%.

Its time for NY City to become its own State -...

 

[FR7 Baptist]

So some unknown number of the additional Congressional seats may be due to illegal immigration?

Possibly.

Besides that...percentages mean nothing. Numbers do.

Example: Let's say your finding out how many left-handed native Elbonians live in Walla Walla. In 2000, there was 4. In 2010, there were 40.

That's a 1,000% increase!!! Elbonians for Congress!
Wait...that's only 36 more people. Never mind.

Lies...cotton' pickin' lies...(yeah, an edit. If I don't Blackbird will...)...and statistics.

There are a lot more Hispanics than Elbonians.

Am I correct in assuming you posted this because you agree with it? If so, and the increase in hispanic population should mean more hispanic representatives in Congress, then do you vote only for candidates of your own color/nationality/ethnicity, or is this based on a false premise?

I vote for people of differing race and ethnicity. For example, I voted for Barack Obama and Kendrick Meek. I didn't vote for Marco Rubio even though he's Hispanic. I do only vote for people of my nationality given that I'm a natural-born citizen of the United States and these are American elections.

 

[Alcott]

I vote for people of differing race and ethnicity. For example, I voted for Barack Obama and Kendrick Meek. I didn't vote for Marco Rubio even though he's Hispanic. I do only vote for people of my nationality given that I'm a natural-born citizen of the United States and these are American elections.

Since you did not address my question, "Am I correct....?" I am under the presumption that I am. As to being normative, should people generally vote for those candidates that look, speak, or act the most like themselves? That is what the man you quoted indicates; at least he indicates so for hispanics.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

As to being normative, should people generally vote for those candidates that look, speak, or act the most like themselves?

No. You should vote based on political principles. Ideally, I'd vote for a candidate who shares my social democratic economic views, center-right social views, and is a strong supporter of civil liberties, like me.

Voting based on ethnicity would be stupid because Hispanic people can have many different political views. For example, I'm related to Armando Calderón Sol, former President of El Salvador. He's my Hispanic grandmother's cousin. Here's a picture of him: http://elsalvadornoticias.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Armando-Calderón-Sol-I.jpg I would never vote for him because I'm not a Salvadoran citizen and because he's a right-winger.

 

[rbell]

There are a lot more Hispanics than Elbonians.

Irrelevant. He listed percentages. That tells us nothing...well, it likely tells us that using percentages put the best face on the statement. He is, after all, a PR guy. Now...should the growth curve continue at that rate...of course the Hispanic swing (or even majority) could be enormous. And no one's denying that there aren't a lot of them, especially in the South & Southwest. My point is, you can't simply say, "It's because of Hispanics." You could also say, "It's because of displaced Rust Belt folks looking for jobs in better business environments," but I can't find the advocacy group for that bunch to quote me stats.

No. You should vote based on political principles. Ideally, I'd vote for a candidate who shares my social democratic economic views, center-right social views, and is a strong supporter of civil liberties, like me.

You're wrong. You should vote like I do. I'll send you a filled-in ballot every election, and you'll be set.