Am I the only one that thinks "whole number of persons" is phrased that way to include legal immigrants/greencard holders, but not illegal immigrants?
Presumably the US do not include tourists in its census, yet they are also "persons in the US". So why shouldn't Tourists be counted if it was truly meant to include everyone in the country?
In theory, if immigration services did their job at 100% perfection, illegal immigrants would not exist as they'd be deported once they overstay their visa or illegally cross the border.
My personal take is that legal imigrants should be counted but illegals should not be counted.
This is the European consensus, yes.
As I have pointed out, most countries in Europe (Austria, Germany for sure, not sure about Spain) apportion electoral districts according to citizen-only population at the last census or annual population estimate.
I think this should be the case in the US as well.
Illegals cannot vote, so the states EVs should be apportioned using the citizenship data only.
The problem is that there is no sufficient citizenship data in the US. One would have to use the annual ACS data, which is based on a sample of households - not actual raw data as determined by the 10-year Census headcount.
Administrative records involving citizenship in the US is very patchy and cannot be used.
PS: tourists are not counted in a Census in any country on the planet. There is a UNSTATS (UN Statistics Authority) guideline, that clearly outlines countries must not count tourists as part of the resident population.
