LA RAZA endorsed HARRY REID FIGHTS COUNTING ILLEGALS! They Don't Want Us to Know How Many Are Voting Dem!

Amendment to Require Citizenship . . . . (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. . . )


HARRY REID, listed on JUDICIAL WATCH’S 2007 10 MOST CORRUPT, along with the LA RAZA ENDORSED, HILLARY CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, NANCY PELOSI will always sell out his state and country by hispandering to the illegals!

THE BIG GAMBLING INTERESTS make sure REID has pockets full of dirty money to keep the floods of illegals coming! IN NEVADA, 25% OF THE POPULATION IS ILLEGALS!

HARRY REID’S Nevada also has the highest rate of FORECLOSURE in the country. States most under MEXICAN OCCUPATION have the highest rates of unemployment and foreclosures.

La Raza donors WELLS FARGO and BANK of AMERICA have made huge profits in marketing mortgages to illegals, and then in foreclosing on them. As well as illegally opening bank accounts for illegals. CNN calculates that more than 20% of the billions sent back to Mexico is Mexican drug cartel money. Wells Fargo is the largest financier of PAY DAY LOAN SHARKS, which particularly victimize illegals.

HARRY REID has long been celebrated by LA RAZA, the Mexican fascist supremacist political party finance in part by Mexico, the FORTUNE 500, and you TAX DOLLARS. LA RAZA CELEBRATES REID WHO GOT THEM FIVE MILLION OF YOUR TAX MONEY TO FINANCE THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION!



Amendment to Require Citizenship and Immigration Questions as Part of Census on Hold in Senate


When the Senate began debate on the annual 2010 funding for the departments of Commerce, Justice and certain science programs on October 7, 2009, Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) filed an amendment to the “CJS” bill that would have required the Census Bureau, which is part of the Department of Commerce, to include on the census forms questions related to citizenship and immigration status. (See H.R. 2847 and S. Amdt. 2644).

The Vitter-Bennett amendment said: “none of the funds provided in this Act… may be used for collection of census data that does not include questions regarding United States citizenship and immigration status.” (S. Amdt. 2644). During debate on his amendment, Senate Vitter stated that: “the way the census is designed, the House would be reapportioned counting illegal aliens. States that have large populations of illegals would be rewarded for that. Other States, including my home State of Louisiana, would be penalized.” Senator Bennett stated that in “Reynolds v. Symms… the Supreme Court gave us the one man, one vote rule, which said that the districts should be close enough in population that, in effect, every voter had the same weight of representation in the House of Representatives.” Bennett also pointed out that counting illegal aliens in the Senate would “chang[e] the one man, one vote [principle] of the Supreme Court [so that] a State with a large number of illegal immigrants will see to it that its voters have greater representation than voters where the illegal immigrants are not.” In other words, as currently structured, the Census will include illegal aliens as will the Congressional reapportionment that follows. As a result, certain states will have more representation in Congress than they should, which will dilute the value of citizen’s votes in states which have less representation than they should.

On October 13, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed cloture on the “CJS” appropriations bill in an attempt to block a vote on the Vitter-Bennett amendment. This parliamentary maneuver, however, failed as the motion to invoke cloture received only 56 of the necessary 60 votes to pass. (To see how your Senators voted on the motion, see Roll Call Vote 320). Unable to use cloture to block the Vitter amendment, Senator Reid stopped consideration of the CJS bill and instead moved to other legislation. This prompted Senator Vitter to comment that Senator Reid was “going through somersaults right now to prevent there being a direct vote on this amendment because it would be very difficult for [some Democratic Senators] to vote against it.” (The Hill, October 15, 2009).