Counting Only Citizens: Restoring Fair Representation in America
There is something quietly revolutionary in the notion that America, the greatest constitutional republic ever devised, should allocate its political power not according to the number of its citizens, but rather by the raw number of persons who happen to reside within its borders. To speak plainly, it is a betrayal of first principles. If sovereignty belongs to the people, then surely it belongs to the citizenry alone. Yet today, states bloated by millions of non-citizens, including those in violation of our immigration laws, leverage their sheer physical presence to seize more seats in Congress, more electoral votes, and more control over the machinery of government. This distortion was no accident. It was a conscious, deliberate strategy pursued by the Democratic Party, a modern Tammany Hall that has exchanged ballots for bodies, citizenship for presence.
Had only citizens been counted after the 2020 census, Democrats would have lost at least ten seats in the House. Today, the House would stand with a Republican majority not of a precarious few but of twenty-seven seats. It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of legislation, the survival of constitutional government, and the structure of American liberty itself hinges on this fundamental issue: who counts.
The Founders were not confused on this matter. When the preamble of the Constitution spoke of "We the People of the United States," it spoke of a sovereign citizenry, not of transient foreign nationals. "The people" were those who owed allegiance to the United States and consented to be governed under its laws. James Madison, that meticulous architect of self-government, spoke of representation founded on the "aggregate number of inhabitants," but it was understood that "inhabitant" carried a meaning inseparable from political membership, allegiance, permanency, belonging.
Nor was this understanding lost upon the generation that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the amendment's text speaks of "the whole number of persons in each state," this was a political compromise, not a philosophical revolution. It was understood that citizenship was the rightful foundation of representation, even if practical politics demanded a broader phrasing. Indeed, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly penalized states that denied the right to vote to adult male citizens, revealing an underlying theory: political power should correlate with the citizenry.
This original understanding is supported, not undermined, by modern jurisprudence. In Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court emphasized that "the achieving of fair and effective representation for all citizens is... the basic aim of legislative apportionment." Not all persons, but citizens. Later cases, such as Franklin v. Massachusetts, confirmed that "persons in each state" encompasses a dimension of allegiance, a permanent tie, rather than mere presence. Thus, nothing in the Constitution compels counting foreign nationals who owe no allegiance and participate in no democratic process.
Why does this matter? Because the alternative is grotesque. In states like California, vast populations of non-citizens, many illegally present, inflate the number of House seats and electoral votes. The votes of citizens in Montana or Ohio are devalued, weighted less heavily than those of citizens living in immigrant-heavy states. This is not representation, it is distortion.
It is, moreover, an incentive to lawlessness. If political power can be seized not by persuading citizens but by importing non-citizens, then the constitutional structure is subverted. The open border is not simply an economic or humanitarian issue; it is a constitutional crisis. It is an effort, naked and unapologetic, to import political power. By counting illegal aliens in the apportionment base, Democrats have constructed an electoral machine whose engine is foreign presence, not American consent.
This state of affairs is not only dangerous, it is unconstitutional. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Those who are not citizens have not given that consent. They cannot vote, they cannot serve on juries, they owe allegiance to other sovereignties. Their inclusion in the apportionment base thus violates the principle of consent and introduces into our constitutional order a silent form of foreign influence.
One might object: did not the Founders speak of "persons," not "citizens"? They did. But context matters. "Persons" in the late eighteenth century carried connotations of permanent inhabitants tied to the polity. The deliberate exclusion of "Indians not taxed" from the census, despite their presence on U.S. soil, underscores the point: mere physical presence, absent allegiance and membership, was insufficient to warrant representation.
Modern practice has drifted far from these moorings. Temporary visitors, foreign diplomats, tourists, all are rightly excluded from census counts for apportionment. Yet millions of illegal aliens are included, despite having no more claim to political membership than an ambassador from abroad. This inconsistency is indefensible.
Legal scholars like Dr. John Eastman and institutions like the Claremont Institute have amply demonstrated that Congress has the authority to rectify this distortion. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce its provisions. If the amendment itself ties representation to citizenship through its penalty clause, then surely Congress can act to align apportionment with citizenship.
Moreover, no binding Supreme Court precedent forbids such an action. In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Court upheld the use of total population but explicitly declined to rule out the use of citizen population. Justice Samuel Alito noted that states are free to consider different bases for redistricting. The path is open.
It is worth reflecting on what hangs in the balance. Representation is not a technicality; it is the lifeblood of self-government. Every seat stolen through the counting of illegal aliens is a seat stolen from the American people. It is a dilution of their sovereignty, a theft of their consent.
And make no mistake: the Democratic Party has pursued this strategy consciously. It has opposed efforts to add a citizenship question to the census, fought to preserve sanctuary cities, and facilitated policies that encourage illegal immigration, all while reaping the political rewards. The aim is clear: to inflate representation where their electoral prospects are strongest, without having to persuade or win over the actual citizenry.
This is political parasitism, not democracy.
There is a remedy. Congress must act to require that only citizens be counted for purposes of congressional apportionment. It must restore the link between representation and consent. And it must do so soon, lest the constitutional republic be transformed into something unrecognizable: a polity in which the citizens are ruled, not by their own elected representatives, but by the shifting tides of foreign populations manipulated for partisan gain.
The moral imperative is clear. The constitutional path is open. The political stakes are urgent. To count only citizens is not an act of exclusion, but an act of restoration: the restoration of a government of, by, and for the people, the American people.
It is time to reclaim our Republic.
If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.