I don’t think Democrat controlled states would be looking to count illegal entrant foreign nationals in the census if our Constitution’s Great Compromise was honored and enforce .
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . " and, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
The basic idea was . . . Representation with a proportional financial obligation if and when any direct tax was to be laid!
Imagine if each state had to pay a proportional amount of tax equal to its illegal entrant foreign national population? Do you think Democrats would vote to count illegal entrant foreign nationals in the Census?
With regard to taxation, and in particular direct taxation and apportionment, the Founder’s principal behind the requirement of apportioning direct taxes is as valid today as when the rule was put into our Constitution ___ it prevents government force being used to impose unequal taxation whenever a direct tax is used. And by tying the rule of apportionment to both direct taxation and representation, a barrier is erected preventing the states from misrepresenting the size of their population in order to enlarge their representation in Congress as explain by Hamilton:
“. . . it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” ___ FEDERALIST NO. 54
Also see:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And then see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41
The problem is, our Republican Party Leadership embraces and defends the rule of apportionment being applied to representation, but not to “direct taxation”. keep in mind there has never been an alteration to our Constitution repealing the requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
BTW, here are the two formulas for apportionment:
State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.
and
State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S FAIR SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER
