‘Put simply, in a district in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) At the heart of “sanctuary” blue states‘ recent fight to block a citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 US census lay a simple principle: more people = more money and political power.

Illegals need not commit voter fraud (although evidence shows that some do) in order to sway American politics to the left. All they need to do is show up, since congressional representation and the disbursement of many federal funds are both tied to a vicinity’s overall share of the total population.

Thus, contrary to their claims to be the champions of the poor and downtrodden, Democrats, in reality, seek to further empower the wealthy elites who can afford to import and subsidize more non-citizens within their community in order to maximize their policy-making clout.

While their partisan pyramid scheme has long been hiding in plain sight, the evidence needed to expose it has been hard to furnish. But a leading immigration-law watchdog, the Center for Immigration Studies, sought to do just that in a newly released report.

The analysis by CIS researchers connected the dots between migration patterns and their political impacts—in particular, the proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral College, which decides presidential elections.

“Apportionment is a zero-sum system,” said the report. “[B]y adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington.”

The researchers found that population shifts due to immigration (both legal and illegal) were likely to result in 26 House seats getting redisbursed.

“Allowing in a large number of legal immigrants and tolerating illegal immigration has created a situation in which the votes of American citizens living in low-immigration districts count much less than those of citizens is living in high-immigration districts,” said the CIS report.

Staggeringly (but to nobody’s surprise), far-left California will claim 11 of those extra seats, compounding its kingmaker role for Democrats.

That, in turn, will drive political debate even farther to the radical fringes exemplified by ethically challenged California congresspeople like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff and Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters.

Also included among the seven states picking up new representatives are extreme-left Massachusetts, Illinois and New York, all of which house at least one major urban center with “sanctuary” designation. National armpit New Jersey, likewise dominated by leftist politics, rounds out the rogues’ gallery.

Meanwhile, “Of the 26 seats that will be lost, 24 are from states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016,” said the CIS report. “… Texas is the only solidly Republican state that gains, while Florida is a swing state.”

However, while blue New York and historically red Texas—both adding four seats—would seem to offset one another, the fact remains that left-leaning sanctuary cities and districts within states like Texas could potentially shift the intra-state political dynamics as well.

Texas is one of at least a dozen states that Democrats are openly targeting to flip, as demonstrated in Beto O’Rourke‘s well-funded 2018 challenge to Sen. Ted Cruz.

The Lonestar State faces incursions from all directions: As its southern borders are violated by illegals coming from or through Mexico—most of whom now claim asylum to delay deportation—Texas has also seen its urban centers, such as Austin, Houston and San Antonio, turn increasingly blue from liberals who, ironically, have fled the high taxation of states like California.

But CIS cautions that even within the ranks of non-citizens, illegals account for a relatively small portion the growth. Many of those impacting the political shift are welcomed into the country through visas and other programs, only to exploit the Constitution’s birthright citizenship provision by having anchor babies with dual citizenship.

Of the estimated 61 million immigrants and their U.S.-born children who are present in the country, roughly half of them are legal permanent residents, CIS said.

“While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation,” said the CIS report. “This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.”

Additionally, the report points out the incongruity of leftist policies, which bar foreign nationals from making political campaign contributions but may, nonetheless, count them—including temporary workers and those on student guest-visas—when tabulating congressional seats.

Because the immigrants themselves remain unable to participate in the political process—unless they become naturalized citizens—the result is that they remain beholden to their magnanimous, liberal benefactors, much like the plantation days of yore.

“If nothing else, it means it takes far fewer votes to win a House seat in a district where a large share of adults is made up of non-citizens,” said the report. “Allowing in a large number of legal immigrants and tolerating illegal immigration has created a situation in which the votes of American citizens living in low-immigration districts count much less than those of citizens is living in high-immigration districts.”

All the while, Americans in states with lower volumes of immigration begin to lose their voting power since the votes of citizens in sanctuary states effectively count for more than themselves.

“Put simply, in a district in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than citizens in districts where almost everyone is an American citizen,” CIS reported. “Put a different way, large non-citizen populations take voting power from some Americans and give it to other American citizens in high-immigration districts.”

Unfortunately, while highlighting the complexities of the problem, CIS offers few solutions, noting that the Constitution’s stance on non-citizen representation is open to interpretation.

Leftists, meanwhile, have viciously fought tooth and nail to retain their spoils system through court injunctions and other un-democratic processes, while rhetorically, they claim quite the opposite: that they wish for everyone to be counted equally.

“Given the large number of immigrants allowed into the country and their concentration in relatively few states, it is inevitable that immigration will exact a political cost from those states that receive relatively few immigrants,” the report concludes.