WTH Do Democrats Really Oppose Deportations? Howard Husock Explains.

With the 2030 Census fast approaching, battles over redistricting and congressional apportionment continue to take shape. As population shifts continue, driven by migration from blue states to red states and the influx of illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities, both parties are looking to secure a larger share of political representation in the decade ahead. At the center of the debate is the Democratic Party’s reliance on a strict, constructivist reading of Article I’s “Free Persons Clause” to justify counting illegal immigrants in reapportionment and redistricting. Critics argue that the lack of legal basis hinder our ability to police the practice and contend that the voting power of American citizens are effectively diluted. Howard proposes an alternative approach: a citizenship initiative focused on those here legally and eligible to naturalize, rather than creating what he describes as modern-day “rotten boroughs”, districts with inflated populations but disproportionate influence in federal elections. Would the Democratic Party support such an effort? Or will they continue to double down on their outrageously unpopular embrace of high illegal immigration?

Howard Husock is a senior fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on municipal government, urban housing policy, civil society, and philanthropy. Before joining AEI, Mr. Husock was vice president for research and publications at the Manhattan Institute. He has also been a director of case studies in public policy and management at the Harvard Kennedy School, a member of the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and a journalist and Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker.

Read the transcript here.

Subscribe to our Substack here.