A Controversy Reignites: Immigration, Power, and Redistricting
Political discourse around immigration in America rarely takes a breath, but every so often, a single comment reignites the debate in ways that reveal deeper truths about our fractured politics. This time, the spark comes from Representative Yvette Clarke of New York, whose remarks about the role of immigration in redistricting set off a firestorm when they resurfaced earlier this year. Clarke’s comments from an October 2021 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing were largely straightforward: she voiced both pride in her district’s ability to welcome migrants—specifically from Haiti—and acknowledged the political importance of population numbers when congressional districts are drawn.
Conservative media and politicians eagerly seized on the clip, framing it as Democrats “saying the quiet part out loud”—an open admission, in their view, that the left uses immigration to tip the scales of political power through redistricting. Former Texas GOP chair Steve Munisteri pointed out that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are counted for congressional apportionment under current law, and he accused Democrats of leveraging this reality for political gain. Yet as quick as Republicans are to cry foul, the record shows that both parties have used every available tool—legal or otherwise—to protect or expand their seats at the table.
Beyond the partisan crossfire, Clarke’s remarks highlight the hard truth of how congressional representation works. Every ten years, the U.S. Census determines the number of House seats each state gets. Counting every resident, regardless of citizenship, is part of our constitutional design, meant to reflect the makeup of communities. As Harvard political historian Alexander Keyssar points out, “Fudging with the Census—leaving groups in or out—has always been a political calculation, dating back to the Three-Fifths Compromise of the founding era. It’s messy, but it’s what democracy looks like.”
Counting More Than Votes: The Democratic Dilemma
Clarke’s words embody the uncomfortable clarity with which many progressives have approached the conversation. Of course population matters—both for resources like schools and hospitals, and for representation in Congress. In her district, which has long served as a landing pad for Haitian immigrants and other diasporic communities, the notion that New York could “absorb” more newcomers signals both a humanitarian impulse and an understanding of political mathematics. Her argument wasn’t that new arrivals ought to vote illegally (they can’t), but that their presence makes her community more visible and powerful when district lines are drawn.
Conservatives argue this amounts to stealing representation from “real Americans.” Jay Town, former U.S. Attorney for Alabama, insists it should be “perfectly constitutional” to exclude undocumented immigrants from the Census count. The subtext here is clear: which residents “count” when we divvy up democracy? This binary thinking overlooks both legal precedent and America’s reality. In 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the Census, partially over concerns it would depress turnout in underrepresented communities—undermining the count itself. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Counting all residents isn’t just constitutional, it’s critical for fair representation.” Excluding non-citizens would strip millions—citizens and non-citizens alike—of federal power and funding.
Behind this policy clash, everyday lives bear the burden. Springfield, Ohio—a city with a recent surge of over 20,000 migrants, many from Haiti—illustrates the growing pains on the ground. Residents have noted higher rents, crowded schools, and even more traffic incidents. Real people are entangled in a system where representation is tied not to their civic participation, but often to where they’re forced—by hope, fear, or policy—to settle.
“Who counts in America will always be the most fraught question in our democracy—precisely because who gets counted determines who has a voice, who gets resources, and who gets left out.”
For progressives, the fight lies in ensuring our politics reflects the reality on the ground: America is in flux, shaped as much by new arrivals as by those born here. Rather than viewing immigrants solely as pawns in a grand partisan chess match, the liberal vision demands we see them as neighbors, workers, taxpayers, and parents.
Gerrymandering, Partisanship, and the Real Threat to Democracy
The cynical take—that Democrats welcome illegals simply to gain power—misses a broader, bipartisan truth: redistricting abuse, or gerrymandering, has been weaponized by both sides for generations. As Munisteri himself candidly notes, “This has always been part of the playbook.” Whether in blue Maryland or red Texas, politicians use the map to protect their turf, packing and cracking communities to dilute or concentrate voting power. Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project found in their 2022 report that both major parties exploit redistricting mechanics, locking in a majority of ‘safe’ districts far out of proportion to the electorate itself.
The actual danger is not that some districts will become more diverse or populous, but that American voters—citizen and non-citizen alike—may find themselves trapped in districts designed to silence genuine competition and community representation. As the leadership of both parties clings to control, everyday Americans lose faith that their votes—or their existence—matter to the system at all.
Immigration and representation, then, are not zero-sum games. Welcoming newcomers, counting them, and building power for diverse communities aligns with the nation’s deepest values—provided it’s done transparently, equitably, and with the needs of current residents at the core. The alternative is a politics that spends more time hunting for demographic advantages than crafting policies that help everyone thrive.
Which path should we choose? Will our future be one of shrinking circles of belonging or of expanding opportunity for all, regardless of where someone’s journey began? The stakes, as ever, are not simply about congressional headcounts, but about the very soul of American democracy.
