Throughout history, the suppression of transformative knowledge has played a pivotal role in shaping our world. Rulers, religious leaders, and organizations have often hidden or destroyed discoveries that threatened their dominance or the established order. Sometimes, these secrets were hidden out of fear of upheaval; in other cases, they were concealed to maintain economic, political, ...

from Health Ranger Report:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

  The establishment of Roman Mithraism in the West (1st to 4th century CE) mirrored the military and cultural challenge to Roman hegemony that emerged in the East from the Parthian Empire.   Successor to a Persian legacy, Parthia was the true patron of Mithraism’s deeply antiquated and authentic, pre-Roman tradition. Following the Zoroastrian tradition, Mithras remained a revered figure of the Parthians, a powerful God amongst their elites.   So, why would Rome co-opt a foreign deity from arguably its most significant enemy? The answer may reside in the common ancient practice of God-stealing.   What Was Roman God Stealing? Pontiffs of Rome retained a God capture role, by Steven Zucker. Source: Flickr   Like numerous ancient peoples before them, the Roman state engaged in God stealing. In peace and in war, Rome nurtured a secret, sensitive history in abducting foreign Gods. Part of this ancient mos maiorum (ancestral custom) went back to Rome’s earliest roots.   Notably distinct from other common forms of religious assimilation and syncretization, divine abduction was a highly targeted and ritualized act, orchestrated by the Roman state.   Involving literal and supernatural elements, Rome ensured that powerful foreign divinities were split off from their host nations and co-opted back to Rome or Italy. God abductions could also be an important element of Rome’s religious and cultural warfare, vindictively deployed to destroy significant enemies.   Part kidnap, part enticement, ritual abductions were sensitive events aimed at forcing “divine defections” in favor of Rome. Addressing heavenly imbalance, they were intended to bolster Rome’s religious fortunes, securing divine patronage from misaligned celestial forces.   Commonly undertaken during times of acute stress for the Roman state, religious abduction persistently reflected Rome’s most acute moments of military and cultural crisis.   We can clearly identify two types of abduction model: the ritual act of evocatio as practiced literally in the midst of war, and the peacetime conveyance of deities by official religious delegation back to Rome.   As Pliny the Elder relates of evocatio, the entire topic was rarely discussed on account of powerful religious and cultural sensitivities. It was also severely at odds with Rome’s vision of itself as a culturally superior conquering empire. Consequently, Roman religious abduction has been overlooked, its significance poorly acknowledged by Romans of the time and by subsequent historians.   God theft was Rome’s dirty little secret and most significantly, traces of it persisted far later than many have appreciated.   Stealing Gods in War: Evocatio Rome loots the Menorah at Jerusalem, Roman Triumphal arch panel copy from Beth Hatefutsoth. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Noun Evocation: the action of invoking a spirit or deity.   Deployed when Romans feared they were battling more than terrestrial forces, evocatio was a significant though rare Roman practice. A ritualistic dark art, it forced the transference of foreign deities away from their native city and people.   Delivered at the most acute culmination of ancient warfare, typically the destruction of an enemy city, evocatio was a ritual act, allowing the Romans to hedge risk during religiously critical moments. The practice sought to control heavenly retribution, protecting the Roman army and state from potentially vindictive enemy Gods.   Prior to an assault, a Roman priest or commander would enact an incantation, enticing the enemy deity to abandon their city. This included an appeasement element; the displaced divinity was often promised a prestigious temple and rights of worship within either Rome or Italy.   City boundaries carried profound religious significance in the ancient world and for Romans especially (descendants of fabled Troy), abandonment by the Gods was near cataclysmic:   “All the Gods by whom this empire was supported have departed, leaving behind their temples and their altars: …” [Virgil, Aeneid 2,351]   The Fall of Troy and the Escape of Aeneas, by Giorgio Ghisi, after Giovanni Battista Scultori, mid-1540s. Source: The MET, New York   Tutelar deities (the patron God of a people or city) were a cornerstone of state survival. For Romans and other ancient peoples, this was an essential aspect of religious state security.   Evocation sought to mollify the anger of those enemy deities of uncertain power and spite.   Yet in a wider cultural sense, this was also an act of ritualized conquest, co-opting the protectors of Rome’s enemies, in an act of religious and cultural domination.   Deployed against Rome’s ancient enemy, the Veii in c. 396 BCE, the Etruscan Juno Regina was lured back to Rome:   “‘Queen Juno, who now dwellest in Veii, I beseech, that thou wouldst follow us, after our victory, to the City which is ours and which will soon be thine, where a temple worthy of thy majesty will receive thee.’” [Livy, History, 5.21]   An honor guard of youthful nobles escorted the Goddess’s statue back to a prestigious temple on the Aventine Hill.   Aeneas Intaglio, 20 BCE. Source: The Getty Museum   Unknown deities were also seemingly evoked at the siege of Etruscan Falerii in 241 BCE.   At the culmination of the Third Punic War, Rome would abduct at least one deity from Carthage in 146 BCE. A supposed incantation by the commander Scipio Aemilianus is intriguing:   “… to any God, to any Goddess, under whose protection are the people and state of Carthage, and chiefly to thee who are charged with the protection of the city and people, I make prayer and do reverence and ask grace of you all, that ye abandon the people and state of Carthage, forsake their places, temples, shrines, and city, and depart there from; …” [Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2.7.]   In other words, break with Carthage.   “… come to Rome, to me and to mine; and that our places, temples, shrines, and city may be more acceptable and pleasing to you; …” [Macrobius, Sat, 2.8.]   And be rewarded and honored back in Rome.   The Decline of the Carthaginian Empire, by J.M.W. Turner, c. 1817. Source: Tate Museum, London   Finally, Macrobius identifies Scipio and the Roman army as the direct agents of religious transference back to Rome. This “contract” with the citizen military is most important for any Mithraic application:   “… take me and the Roman people and my soldiers under your charge; …” [Macrobius, Sat, 2.8.]   A far later source from the 5th Century CE, Macrobius has been heavily discounted as an obscure secondary witness, albeit quoting from earlier lost records. Yet, whether verbatim or imagined, the elements of such an incantation are highly plausible. It credibly highlights a distinct cultural phenomenon, aligning well with other contemporary and established sources, such as Livy, Pliny the Elder, and Plutarch.   Archaeology further underlines an instance of evocation that persisted even into the late Republic. A fragmentary inscription (AE 1977, 816 = CIL IÇ 2954) taken from the Cilician city of Isaura Vetus in Asia Minor (southern Turkey) dates to 75 BCE and, in short form, emulates aspects of the ritualistic terminology cited by Macrobius.   The Cilician link is tantalizing, as the only direct literary testimony we have (Plutarch) notes that it was Cilician Pirates that propagated Mithraism across the Mediterranean.   However, site evidence suggests a distinct limitation of the evocation practiced at Isaura Vetus whereby the unknown tutelary deity was appeased with a temple in the local province, and did not receive full conveyance to Rome.   Evocatio Beyond the Republic Bronze Plaque of Mithras, 2nd-3rd century CE. Source: The MET, New York   Evocation may well have extended into the Early Principate and therefore constituted a viable mechanism for Mithraic transference to the West.   Pliny the Elder cites Verrius Flaccus, noting that pontiffs were still, in Augustan times, proficient in the practice:   “… [at] a siege, it was the usage, the first thing of all, for the Roman priests to summon forth the tutelary divinity of that particular town, and to promise him the same rites, or even a more extended worship, at Rome; and at the present day even, this ritual still forms part of the discipline of our pontiffs. Hence it is, no doubt, that the name of the tutelary deity of Rome has been so strictly kept concealed, lest any of our enemies should act in a similar manner.” [Pliny, Natural History, 28.4.18]   Pliny confirms that Rome was still capable of performing evocation in the early 1st century CE, a period pertinent for the early transfer of Mithraism to the Roman West.   Evocatio was certainly an archaic ritual, clearly diminishing by the Late Republic, yet whether the practice was redundant by the 1st century CE, is far less certain.   Mithras Slaughtering the Bull, 2nd century CE. Source: The British Museum   In the shadow realm of religious “black ops,” Pliny also highlights that the Romans were deeply paranoid about their own vulnerabilities. Plutarch echoes the sentiment:   “… as certain Roman writers have recorded, there are certain evocations and enchantments affecting the gods, by which the Romans also believed that certain gods had been called forth​ from their enemies, and had come to dwell among themselves, and they were afraid of having this same thing done to them by others?” (Plutarch, Moralia, Roman Questions, 61)   Plutarch goes on to note that Valerius Soranus (possibly a Tribune in the time of Sulla) was put to death for uttering the name(s) of Rome’s tutelary protector(s). God capture and protection was a serious and clandestine business. Careless talk costs lives.   Of paramount relevance to the Mithraic context, these various references within the late Republic and Early Principate render “divine abduction” a viable (though previously overlooked) model for the “transference” of Roman Mithras to the West.   Stealing Gods in Peacetime Early Persian bull, silver vessel, 900-500 BCE. Source: The Barakat Gallery   The Roman state also co-opted foreign Gods in times of peace. Triggered by periods of acute stress, abductions were aimed at addressing specific problems.   Ceres, an agricultural deity was transposed to Rome by the dictator A. Postumius Albinus. This followed command of the Sibylline Books, most notably in response to a period of famine in around 496 BCE. Associated with the Greek goddess Demeter, she was afforded a temple on the Aventine Hill.   In 291 BCE, the healing god Asclepius was summoned to Rome from Epidaurus, following a plague in 293 BCE, and installed outside the city, on an island in the Tiber. A strange “dream-like” story exists in Livy of the Roman embassy literally escorting a snake (the symbolic embodiment of Asclepius) by ship, back to Rome.   Cybele (Roman Magna Mater) was similarly conveyed from Phrygia in Asia Minor and established on the Palatine Hill in Rome in 204 BCE. Guided by the Sibylline Books, the deity was welcomed to Rome by prominent Roman matrons. Like Mithras, Cybele had an ancient and distinctly eastern pedigree, established long before her Romanization. Driven by the Second Punic War, the Romans needed a divine boost in their deadly struggle with Carthage.   Rome clearly had a tradition of co-opting foreign deities during periods of crisis. Indeed, it is hard not to see the Romans as actually “shopping to order” for certain deities and their attributes. Some anthropologists have labelled Roman God-stealing as nothing less than a “crisis ritual,” undertaken in response to acute periods of cultural uncertainty.   But if later Mithraic transference in the 1st century CE was part of this model, what was the actual crisis Rome faced?   Hot Wars, Cold Wars, Culture Wars Persian bulls-head column from Persepolis, 5th century BCE. Source: The Met, New York   “… thus when Crassus fell, Who held apart the chiefs, in piteous death, And stained Assyria’s plains with Latin blood, Defeat in Parthia loosed the war in Rome.” [Lucan, Pharsalia, 1,103ff]   Parthia’s earliest shock victory over Rome foreshadowed the Republic’s fall.   Though not the cause of the state’s demise, the total defeat of Crassus by Parthian arms at Carrhae in 53 BCE set in motion a political “unravelling” that would see the Republic falter. Decades of deadly civil war would follow; a bloody doomsday for the proud Republic that had conquered for half a millennium!   Not only the nemesis of Crassus, Parthia defied the military ambitions of Caesar and Antony. Though Octavian would present the later retrieval of Crassus’s lost eagles as a victory, this was thin propaganda for a Roman audience.   Rome certainly rallied to experience both military and diplomatic victories in the East again, but the martial confidence of the Late Republic was a true zenith, at least for generations to follow. Parthia would endure as a long-term rival to Rome’s hegemony in the East.   Potential clues around Rome’s adoption of Mithras emerge within the context of this new relationship with Parthia. Typified by the sponsorship of opposing puppet-kings, uneasy treaties, spheres of influence, tensions, and breakdowns into conflict, the Julio-Claudian rulers each sought strategies to stabilize the Eastern border while projecting—to varying degrees of reality—notions of Roman power, control, and cultural legitimacy.   Though much of the conflict of the 1st century CE played out via proxy wars (largely over Armenia), Rome’s hot conflicts with Parthia were punctuated with distinct periods of a deeper “cold war.” Elements of diplomatic and cultural warfare played-out as the two power-blocks maneuvered for advantage throughout the 1st century CE.   Ritualized domination was part of Roman Mithraic initiation, Capua fresco of Mithraic initiation. Source: Mithraeum.eu   Here, both Rome and Parthia engaged in highly symbolic acts of cultural and political conflict that almost certainly included dimensions of religious warfare.   The ritual submission of the Armenian king Tiridates I in 66 CE before a statue of Nero, mounted on a curial chair, is a distinct example, demonstrating the importance of symbolism within the psychological realm of a wider cultural war.   It is against this backdrop that the ritual abduction of Mithras into the Roman orbit, may conceivably have played out. Whether constructed as a voluntary divine defection or an induced state kidnapping, the usurpation of a principal Parthian God to the Roman West must have constituted a propagandic coup of the highest order.   Parthia was certainly not above such dirty tricks. Bizarrely, the posthumous usurpation of the last Julio-Claudian emperor, Nero, was a shocking example. Parthia harbored at least two pseudo-Neros who emerged in the decades following Nero’s suicide in 68 CE.   “You steal our God; we steal your Emperor,” or the other way around. No matter how bogus, the hints of a “tit for tat,” asymmetrical war are clearly there if we know where to look. Perpetually opaque, such instances also convey the distinct elements of ritual dominance and denigration that are so characteristic of “dirty wars.”   Bust of Nero in the Summer Garden, St Petersburg. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Overt dominance is certainly something that can be found within “Roman” Mithraic iconography. The ritual bull slaughter (tauroctony) that appears exclusively within Roman Mithraism might well carry an allegorical and vindictive message for the jilted Parthians.   Bulls conveyed both sacred and royal connotations within the Achaemenid and Parthian tradition. Their ritual slaughter by a co-opted Romanized Mithras might conceivably signify a brutal message of Roman ritual supremacy. Sources tell us that aspects of Mithraic practice also simulated ritual acts of extreme violence and domination. Could these acts have conveyed coded Roman dominance? Was Roman Mithras a “Who’s the daddy” cult?   As a deity, Mithras made for a high-value target. The powerful sun god, associated with divine order and contracts, was believed to have regulated oaths of military service, including those between eastern kings and their warrior elites.   Though this overview is highly speculative, what is certain is that Rome and Parthia were clearly messing* with each other within the cultural and symbolic spheres.   (*Kids today use a stronger word.)   Does a God-Stealing Model Fit? Parthian Rhyton, Bull Cup, 2nd century BCE. Source: Harvard Art Museums   With the use of evocation seemingly running into the Late Republic, and with ritual capability being retained by Pontiffs of the 1st century CE, we have a timeframe that is viable for the establishment of Roman Mithraea (underground temples) in the West.   Traditional supposition is that Roman Mithraism must have transfused into the West a generation or so before the appearance of well-built Mithraea in Rome, Italy, and the central Roman Empire. This would fit with the earliest examples that we see in archaeology from the later quarter of the 1st century CE.   Perplexing to historians and archaeologists, the diffusion of Mithraic temples does not show any gradual or sequential spread from Rome’s Eastern provinces to the West, but rather a comparatively rapid “jump” to the center of the empire. Enter here the notion that Mithras may have been ritually conveyed back to Rome, as we know other co-opted deities were.   With a high relative concentration of Mithraea specifically around Ostia and Rome, we might also consider that Ostia (and the Tiber-Rome axis) was the predictable point of entry for any “conveyed” divinity to make landfall in Italy.   Mithras from the London Mithraeum, by Carole Raddato. Source: Flickr   Additionally, a growing discourse has also furthered the theory, that Roman Mithraism—so seemingly disjointed and inauthentic from its pre-Roman antiquity—may have been a Roman pseudo-religion: perhaps a “costume cult,” loosely appropriated from the East.   However, a God stealing model also accommodates this scenario, as Romans may have “stolen” mere approximations of their enemies’ gods. It does not follow that they were always accurate in their understanding of the Gods they co-opted. Macrobius certainly hints that Scipio Aemilianus invoked unknown deities from Carthage, that he could not fully hope to fathom prior to the city’s fall.   If the “capture” of Mithras was indeed part of Roman cultural warfare, religious accuracy may not have been of primary concern, not more so than the symbolic dominance and humiliation that such an act represented.   Domination iconography; Parthian prisoner on arch of Septimius Severus. Source: Philipharland.com   Whatever the scenario, subsequent distribution (1st to 3rd century CE) of Roman Mithraea highlight the cult’s great success in military frontier provinces, such as Northern and Western Europe (Hadrian’s Wall, the Rhine and Danube frontiers), as well as North Africa. This attests to the tacit, though powerful appeal of the cult specifically within the army.   Though modern scholarship has broadened its interpretation of Mithraic/military participation to include ancillary groups like veterans, administers, traders and artisans (freedmen), Mithraism’s correlation with the wider army (administrative, logistical and commercial) remains fundamental.   Mithraism tracked the Roman army through cities, forts, frontiers, roads, and rivers, mapping principal logistical networks by which the Roman army built and operated.   Mithraism also drew imperial patronage, and although secretive, this is clear testimony to a cult that was hiding in plain sight.   Paranoia and violent suppression were known responses to several other foreign cults (and groups) that triggered Roman distaste and anxiety. So, in the final analysis we must ask just why Mithraism was tolerated when other prominent foreign cults were not?   At face value, Mithraism exhibited several “triggers” that typically invoked Roman persecution. Not only foreign, but from an “enemy” culture, Mithraism was both secretive and clandestinely linked to the army. Unless actively welcomed, it is hard to explain why the Romans did not see the cult as a sinister threat. The cult’s toleration was especially odd during an acute period of prolonged military and cultural tension with Parthia.   Stealing Mithras: In Conclusion Captain America: God capture is a form of cultural warfare, by JarvanniIV. Source: Deviant Art   Even amongst the diverse foreign religions that were transfused, syncretized, and tolerated within Rome’s pantheon, something about Mithraism is unique.   Early Parthian victories severely shook Roman military confidence—the bedrock of Roman identity. Critically, this coincided with the unthinkable demise of the Roman Republic.   To accommodate cultural trauma, might Rome have utilized a long-established crisis ritual, and stolen Mithras, the Parthian sun god?   A known Roman crisis ritual that endured into the Late Republic and seemingly the Early Principate, it is a scenario that accounts for Mithraism’s rather unique acceptance into Rome and its military.   It is a model that explains Mithraism’s rapid and archaeologically unique progression to the West. Involving elements of the symbolic and literal, it is flexible enough to accommodate questions around the potentially “pseudo vs authentic” aspect of the Roman Mithraic identity.   Long overlooked, God stealing is a valid proposition, certainly deserving of further evaluation within Roman Mithraic study.

A new plan is quickly emerging that could strip Democrats of a significant number of House seats AND Electoral College votes! And as with everything in the Trump 2.0 Administration, things are moving very fast. It all started with Marjorie Taylor Greene floating out the idea to eliminate the “Census Fraud” put into place by the Biden Regime and order a brand new census to be put into place immediately that would only count actual U.S. Citizens! Not residents… Not illegals… Not green card holders… But only U.S. Citizens, which is the only truly legal way to do it. You can see her lay out the plan here: The American people are underrepresented thanks to Biden’s census fraud. My bill: Orders a new census of U.S. citizens only. Directs states to redraw House maps accordingly. Ends non-citizen voting in federal elections. President Trump backs it. Now let’s pass it. pic.twitter.com/8Od3PpgAcA — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) July 2, 2025 News almost immediately spread to President Trump who said he was aware of the plan and supports it 100%. Watch here: JUST IN — President Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis join the call for a NEW, more accurate Census. 2020 was a completely bastardized and flawed process. Only American citizens should be counted. Republicans will gain at least 10 seats, probably more. Let’s go!!! https://t.co/Kwhl3uOSNf pic.twitter.com/cmOfp87Z2E — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 1, 2025 FULL TRANSCRIPT: Bureau to redo the census to actually get an account of how many Americans with proof of citizenship are in our area — in our country — redistricturing some of the House districts. Your thoughts on that? Well, I’ll speak for both of us. We love it. Okay. You’re gonna like this one. I know all about it. Uh, we have a — uh — wanna bring our elections back. The election in 2020 was rigged — millions and millions of votes. It had to do with COVID and a lot of things, but it really had to do with their crooked people. The Democrats are very good at cheating in elections — wants. And that’s why I said too big to rig. They tried this one too, but after about 9:02 they gave up. Too many votes, you know? Too big to rig. Ron would love it. I would love it.Mm-hmm.Christie would love it.Absolutely. That’s what they have to do. They have to bring it back. And we have to — look, and Ron — they include anybody that happens to be in your state. And — well — California — That’d be — California would lose like 5 seats. Yeah, if they did a fair census. And even beyond that, the Biden census jipped Florida of at least one seat. Mm-hmm. We only got one seat in the last census. Are you trying to tell me that Florida only had one seat in that? Mm-hmm. We should have had at least two. Texas should have had — Yep — another one. That could be the difference in the House of Representatives — Right, and the majority. So I would love for them to redo the census for ’26. My legislature will redistrict those lines. We’ll get it to where it’s fair. But as it’s right now, this country is not fairly apportioned. The best news? Stephen Miller is not only aware of it, but truth be told I think he’s probably the brainchild of it in the first place. And details are now emerging that Miller has already been running with it: BREAKING: The White House is currently working on ways to EXCLUDE illegal aliens from the US census, per Stephen Miller This would take away SEVERAL House seats from places like California, as seats are determined by population GET IT DONE! No illegals in the census! pic.twitter.com/3xlv9zwRbG — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 30, 2025 You can almost take it to the bank that when Stephen Miller sets his sights on something and locks in, it’s going to get done! But now break down what exactly this means… I went to ChatGPT and gave it detailed instructions to analyze what would happen in terms of House Seats and Electoral College votes if this were actually put into place immediately and all non-citizens were removed from the Census. I told it to do “DeepResearch” and it actually took about 20-30 minutes as it chewed through all the data. I’m going to give you those full reports down below, but I don’t want to hide the ball or bury the lede so first let me just give you the short answers… House Seats: ChatGPT estimates that blue states are hit bad, and red states gain big, with a minimum of 3-5 house seats shifting Republican, but perhaps the more likely figure is 10-14 seats shifting Republican because that’s how many shifted Democrat when Biden recounted in 2020 and included all non-citizen illegal aliens. Electoral College: In the Electoral College, ChatGPT estimates Red States pick up 6 Electoral College votes and Blue States lose 6 votes which is MASSIVE 12 vote swing from where things were at in 2024. Now for the full analysis for anyone who wants to go DEEP on this… House Seats: Impact of Excluding Non-Citizens on 2025 Congressional Apportionment Introduction & Methodology Under current law, congressional apportionment is based on total population, counting all residents (citizens and non-citizens) in each statefactcheck.org. The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment specifies apportionment using the “whole number of persons in each State,” and the Supreme Court has affirmed that “persons” includes every resident regardless of citizenship or legal statusthirdway.orgthirdway.org. In practice, this means even non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents, visa holders, and undocumented immigrants) have always been counted for dividing House seats. Scenario: Suppose that in 2025 the apportionment were recalculated using only U.S. citizens, excluding all non-citizens from state population counts. To estimate this impact, we use the latest available data on non-citizen populations by state (from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, ACS). The ACS 2015–2019 five-year estimates (weighted to 2020) report about 22.16 million non-citizens nationwide, ~6.8% of the U.S. resident populationthearp.org. Subtracting these non-citizens from each state’s 2020 census population gives a “citizens-only” population for apportionment. We then apply the standard Method of Equal Proportions (the same formula used in the 2020 census) to allocate 435 House seats among the 50 states based on citizen-only populations. Each state is guaranteed one seat, and the remaining seats are assigned by ranking states by priority values (a function of population) until all seats are distributedpewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. This analysis assumes no change in the total number of House seats (still 435), so any seat gained by one state means a seat lost by another (a zero-sum shift). State-by-State Seat Redistribution Using the citizen-only apportionment model, a significant shift in House seats would occur. States with large non-citizen populations would lose representation, while states with smaller non-citizen shares would gain. Table 1 below details the projected changes for each state that would lose or gain seats if only citizens were counted (states not listed would see no change in seat count). The “Current seats” reflect the actual House seats each state received after the 2020 census (based on total population), and “Adjusted seats” is the recalculated number if apportionment were based on citizens only. The net change column shows the seat loss (–) or gain (+) for each state, and the estimated partisan impact indicates which party would likely hold the lost or newly gained seat, based on the state’s political makeup and recent voting patterns in those districts. Table 1. Projected House Seat Changes with Non-Citizens Excluded (Citizen-Only Apportionment) State Current House Seats (2020 apportionment) Adjusted Seats (Citizens-Only) Net Seat Change Likely Partisan Impact (lost or gained seat) California 52 48 –4 Loss of 4 seats (likely Democratic seats lost, given California’s delegation is overwhelmingly Democratic)cis.org. New York 26 24 –2 Loss of 2 seats (likely Democratic seats lost; NY is Dem-leaning, though one loss could come from a GOP-held district). New Jersey 12 11 –1 Loss of 1 seat (likely Democratic; NJ is blue and a Democratic seat would likely be eliminated). Illinois 17 16 –1 Loss of 1 seat (potentially a Republican seat lost – Illinois’ Dem-controlled map would likely cut a GOP district). Colorado 8 9 +1 Gain of 1 seat (expected Democratic advantage; Colorado’s population growth is around Denver and trends blue). Florida 28 29 +1 Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Florida’s GOP legislature would likely draw a new GOP-leaning district). Louisiana 6 7 +1 Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Louisiana is strongly red – though a new seat could raise pressure for a second minority/Dem district). Missouri 8 9 +1 Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Missouri is heavily GOP, so new district would favor the GOP). Montana 2 3 +1 Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Montana is a deep red state – a third seat would likely elect a Republican). North Carolina 14 15 +1 Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; GOP-controlled redistricting in NC would ensure a GOP-leaning new district). Oregon 6 7 +1 Gain of 1 seat (likely Democratic; Oregon’s Democratic legislature would likely draw the new seat favorably for Democrats). Texas 38 39 +1 Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Texas’ GOP legislature would design a new district favoring Republicans). Sources: These projections are based on 2019 ACS-estimated citizen populations, projected to 2020. According to the American Redistricting Project’s analysis, California would lose four seats, New York would lose two, and New Jersey and Illinois one each, while Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas would each gain one under a citizens-only countthearp.org. The current seat counts are from the official 2020 census apportionment. Partisan impact assessments are inferred from each state’s recent voting patterns and control of redistricting. For example, California’s delegation is almost 80% Democratic, so most of the four eliminated districts would likely have been Democratic-held seats. In Illinois, where Democrats control map-drawing, an eliminated district would probably be one of the few Republican-held seats, as Illinois Democrats would seek to maintain their advantage. In contrast, new seats in Republican-dominated states (Texas, Florida, etc.) would be drawn to favor GOP candidates. Major Shifts and Trends The redistribution above reflects major shifts in political representation if non-citizens were excluded. Notably: California’s dramatic loss of 4 seats underscores its large non-citizen population (over 5.3 million non-citizens in 2019 ACS data) and the heavy impact on immigrant-rich statesthearp.org. California would drop from 52 seats to 48 – a reduction of ~8% of its House delegation. Such a steep loss is unprecedented in modern times; it would diminish California’s influence in Congress and the Electoral College (costing it 4 electoral votes as well). New York’s substantial loss of 2 seats (from 26 to 24) likewise reflects its high immigrant population (especially in NYC). This would be on top of the seat New York already lost in 2020. A loss of two more would shrink NY’s delegation to 24, its lowest since the 1820s. Both California and New York – traditionally Democratic strongholds – would see their political clout erode under citizen-only apportionment. New Jersey and Illinois (also states with large immigrant communities) each lose 1 seat, continuing a trend of population-share decline in the Northeast and Midwest. Gains in mid-sized and smaller states: Several states with relatively fewer immigrants would pick up seats. Texasparadoxically gains +1 seat despite its large non-citizen population; this is because while Texas has many non-citizens, states like CA and NY have even higher shares, so Texas’ relative share of the citizen-only population actually grows enough to snag an additional seat. This would give Texas 39 seats, further closing the gap with California’s delegation. Florida gains an extra seat as well (going to 29); even though Florida has many non-citizens (e.g. in Miami), its booming citizen population still elevates it in rank once California and New York are knocked down. North Carolina, Colorado, Oregon – all states that gained 1 seat from the 2020 census – would each gain yet another seat with only citizens counted (each moving up one more notch in the apportionment list). Colorado would have 9 seats instead of 8, reflecting its growth and moderate immigrant share. Oregon would get 7 instead of 6. North Carolina would go from 14 to 15. Notably, Montana – which only just regained a 2nd seat in 2020 after decades of having one at-large district – would actually jump to 3 seats under this scenario, an unusual expansion for a rural state. This occurs because Montana has a very small non-citizen population, so its citizen population is relatively larger compared to states like New Jersey or Illinois in a citizen-only count. Similarly, Louisiana and Missouri (states that have not gained seats in many decades and in fact have lost seats over time) would each gain one seat, reversing long-running trends of stagnant or declining representation. Their low immigrant populations give them a boost in this redistribution. These shifts highlight a clear pattern: states with higher shares of non-citizens (many of them traditionally “blue” states or urbanized states) lose out, and states with lower non-citizen shares (often “red” or less urban states) benefit. In total, eight seats would be reallocated away from four states (CA, NY, NJ, IL) and given to eight other states. This reflects a sizable re-balancing of political power among the states. Partisan Impact Analysis Politically, excluding non-citizens from apportionment would likely advantage Republicans overall – though not by as much as one might intuitively expect, and not enough on its own to radically change the partisan balance of the House. The reason is that while the state shifts are significant (from blue states to red states), the question of which party wins or loses each specific seat depends on district-level politics and redistricting choices: Democratic-Leaning States Lose Seats: The states losing seats (California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois) are all Democratic-leaning at the state level. This means the pool of lost seats comes largely from areas that favor Democrats. For example, California’s four eliminated districts would likely be in areas currently represented mostly by Democrats, simply because Democrats hold roughly 80% of California’s seats. New York’s two lost seats would probably also both be Democratic-held (especially if the Democratic-controlled NY legislature were drawing the new map – they would not sacrifice their own safe seats if they can instead eliminate a Republican-held seat, but even after aggressive gerrymandering, at least one Democratic seat would likely be lost). New Jersey’s delegation is predominantly Democratic (currently 9D–3R), so a reduced map would likely pit two Democrats against each other, eliminating one Democratic seat. In total, one can estimate that out of the 8 seats lost by these four blue states, perhaps 5–6 were held by Democrats and a couple by Republicans. Illinois is a special case: Democrats there could use the loss as an opportunity to eliminate one of the few Republican districts (since Illinois’ legislature is Democrat-controlled). Thus Illinois’ lost seat might actually come at the expense of a Republican incumbent. Overall, though, the majority of the seats being eliminated are Democratic-held, reflecting the fact that immigrants bolster representation in Democratic areascis.orgcis.org. Republican-Leaning States Gain Seats: Most of the states gaining seats are Republican-leaning (Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, Montana). These new districts would likely favor the GOP. In states where Republicans control redistricting (e.g. TX, FL, NC, MO, LA), mapmakers would almost certainly draw the new seat to elect a Republican if at all possible. For example, Florida’s legislature (and governor) is Republican; when Florida gained a 28th seat in 2022, the resulting map was drawn to heavily favor Republicans (yielding a 20R–8D delegation). A 29th seat in Florida would presumably be drawn in a GOP-friendly region, adding another Republican to Florida’s ranks. Texas, with unified GOP control, would likely carve out a new district in a conservative area or configure it to dilute Democratic voters, aiming to elect a Republican. North Carolina’s situation is similar – a new 15th seat would be drawn in the upcoming GOP gerrymander (NC’s legislature has already signaled plans to redraw maps) likely as a Republican-leaning district. Missouri and Montana are solidly red – any new seats there would almost certainly be won by Republicans. Two of the gaining states, however, lean Democratic: Colorado and Oregon. Colorado uses an independent commission for redistricting, but given recent trends (Colorado went 5D–3R in House seats in 2022), a new 9th district might be at least competitive if not Democratic-leaning (depending on where the population growth is concentrated). Oregon’s Democratic legislature would have control over drawing a 7th district – they would likely create a district favoring Democrats (much as Oregon’s 6th seat added in 2022 was drawn to be Democratic-leaning). Thus, out of the 8 new seats created, it’s plausible that 5–6 would lean Republican and 2–3 Democratic. Combining these effects, the net impact on party seat counts would likely be a modest loss for Democrats and a modest gain for Republicans. A reasonable estimate is that Democrats would likely lose on the order of 3–5 House seats, net, under a citizens-only apportionment, shifting those seats to GOP control. For instance, one detailed analysis found that counting all immigrants (citizens or not) in 2020 tended to shift about 10–14 seats into Democratic-leaning states that they wouldn’t have if only citizens were countedcis.org. In our scenario, removing non-citizens would reverse some of that, effectively tilting a few seats back toward Republican states. Another study (focused only on undocumented immigrants) found virtually no partisan net benefit to Democrats from including that subsetfactcheck.orgfactcheck.org – meaning excluding just undocumented immigrants alone would have been roughly a wash in 2020. But when all non-citizens are excluded, the larger numbers concentrated in blue states like CA and NY mean a greater effect that likely doesbenefit Republicans slightly. In short, Democratic stronghold states lose several seats, while Republican states gain several – however, because Democrats can sometimes mitigate damage through redistricting (e.g. eliminating an opposition seat) and because a couple of gains are in blue states, the partisan change is not extreme. It would probably be enough to cost Democrats a few seats in the House, potentially making it harder for them to attain or hold a majority. For example, if these changes had been in effect for the current Congress, the slim GOP House majority (222–213 after 2022) might have been a bit larger – perhaps on the order of 225–210, making GOP control slightly more secure. It’s worth noting that the partisan impact is ultimately limited by geography: non-citizens are heavily concentrated in a handful of states (and mostly in metro areas). These areas already vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so “extra” seats there don’t always equate to additional Democratic wins in Congress beyond what they would win in a smaller delegation. Conversely, many of the gaining states are already overwhelmingly Republican, so additional seats simply add more Republican members. The result is a net tilt, but not a dramatic overhaul of House control. Political analysts have observed that including non-citizens has thus far not drastically altered the partisan balance of Congressfactcheck.org, although it does shift representation toward certain states and communities. Excluding non-citizens would reverse that representational shift, to the detriment of diverse, immigrant-heavy regions and likely to the benefit of whiter, more rural regions (which tend to favor the GOP)houstonlawreview.org. Political Implications The implications of this shift would be far-reaching. Representation in Congress drives not only the number of House members but also each state’s influence in the Electoral College (electors = House seats + 2 senators). Under a citizens-only apportionment, large immigrant-rich states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would see their electoral vote clout reduced, while states like Texas, Florida, and others would gain electoral votes. For example, California would lose four electoral votes for presidential elections, while Texas and Florida would gain one each, and so on, potentially affecting the balance of power in close presidential contests. (However, even a shift of a few electoral votes likely wouldn’t swing recent presidential outcomes by itselffactcheck.org, barring an exceptionally tight race, since recent victories have margins larger than the 3–4 vote swing this scenario might produce.) More broadly, excluding non-citizens from apportionment would ignite intense political and legal battles. The change would disproportionately affect states and districts with large immigrant communities – which are often urban, ethnically diverse, and Democratic-leaning. These communities (e.g. Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Chicago’s immigrant neighborhoods) would face diminished representation even though they are home to millions of people, many of whom contribute to the economy and society but lack citizenship. This raises issues of fairness and equal representation: members of Congress from affected areas would argue that hundreds of thousands of residents in their communities would no longer “count” toward representation, effectively diluting the political voice of areas with more immigrants (who are often people of color). On the other hand, proponents of a citizen-only count (generally Republicans from states with fewer immigrants) argue it’s unfair for states to gain seats due to populations who are not eligible to vote. They contend that counting only citizens would align representation more closely with the voting electorate. Indeed, Republican lawmakers have periodically proposed requiring the census to count only citizens. In early 2023, the House of Representatives (then GOP-controlled) even passed a bill (H.R. 151, the “Equal Representation Act”) to mandate a citizenship question on the census and apportion based on citizens, claiming it would ensure only citizens influence representationcivilrights.orgcivilrights.org. This reflects a political calculus: Republican-leaning states stand to gain power if non-citizens (who tend to cluster in Democratic areas) are excluded. Our analysis shows those gains would be real, but relatively modest – still, in a closely divided House, a net swing of a few seats could be consequential. One immediate implication if such a policy were seriously pursued is that district maps and plans would have to be redrawn across many states. States losing seats (like CA or NY) would undergo another round of redistricting to collapse districts – a process likely to pit incumbents against each other and could weaken representation for fast-growing immigrant communities (e.g. California’s Inland Empire or New York City’s outer boroughs might see districts merged or eliminated). States gaining seats would also redraw maps to add new districts, which could reopen contentious gerrymandering fights (for instance, North Carolina’s partisan battle over maps would intensify with an extra seat to allocate). These disruptions so soon after the 2020 redistricting cycle could create political chaos and confusion for voters, who may see their district boundaries shift mid-decade. Historical and Legal Context Historically, the principle of counting all persons for apportionment has been the norm since the nation’s founding. The original Constitution (Article I, Section 2) mandated counting “the whole Number of free Persons” and “three fifths of all other Persons” (the latter referring to enslaved people) while excluding “Indians not taxed”thirdway.org. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 to count “the whole number of persons in each State”, eliminating the three-fifths compromise. Ever since, every decennial census has included citizens and non-citizens alike for apportionment purposespewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. This includes vast waves of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries – for example, millions of non-citizen European immigrants in 1890 or 1910 were counted, boosting states like New York and Illinois in those eras. There have been periodic proposals to change who is counted (in the 1920s, some suggested counting only citizens or only voters, and more recently proposals to exclude undocumented immigrants), but no such change has ever been implementedthirdway.org. In fact, Congress explicitly considered and rejected limiting apportionment to citizens when debating the 14th Amendment in 1866civilrights.orgcivilrights.org. The legal consensus has long been that apportionment must be based on total population. In Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the use of total population in drawing state legislative districts, noting that representatives serve all residents (“the whole community”) not just eligible voters – by extension underscoring that representational equality in Congress is based on all persons, not just citizensthirdway.org. Earlier, in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), the Court affirmed the inclusion of overseas federal employees in state counts, reinforcing that “persons in each State” means literally every person with usual residence in the statethirdway.org. There is no constitutional provision or statute that excludes non-citizens from the apportionment count, and attempts to do so unilaterally have been deemed unlawful. Recent attempts to exclude certain groups underscore the legal barriers. In 2018, Alabama sued the Commerce Department to prevent counting undocumented immigrants, fearing the loss of a House seat to states like California. That lawsuit argued counting undocumented residents diluted Alabama’s representation, but federal courts dismissed the casein 2021brennancenter.orgbrennancenter.org, essentially for lack of standing and because the claim was not supported by law (the dismissal came after the 2020 census, rendering the issue moot for that cycle). The Trump administration in 2020 openly sought to alter the apportionment by first attempting to add a citizenship question to the census (blocked by the Supreme Court in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)) and later issuing a presidential memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from the 2020 apportionment count. This effort was met with immediate legal challenges. While the Supreme Court in late 2020 punted on ruling directly (finding the issue not ripe, since the census results were not finalized), the plan never came to fruition. Career Census Bureau officials could not produce a reliable count of undocumented immigrants by the apportionment deadline, and the policy was rescinded by the incoming Biden administration. Notably, even some conservative justices hinted at skepticism of Trump’s authority to redefine “persons” for apportionment, and ultimately no apportionment excluding non-citizens has ever been carried outthirdway.org. In 2021, President Biden reaffirmed that the apportionment would include all residents, “without regard to immigration status,” restoring the traditional practice. Legally, to exclude non-citizens from apportionment would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment. A simple statute like H.R. 151 would face strong constitutional objections, as it directly conflicts with the 14th Amendment’s text and intentcivilrights.org. Amending the Constitution is a very high bar (needing two-thirds of Congress and 38 states’ ratification), making this change highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the census itself would need to reliably determine citizenship status for every person – something the Census Bureau has cautioned against. Adding a citizenship question or otherwise trying to identify non-citizens at a granular level could undermine the accuracy of the count, because it might deter responses not only from undocumented immigrants but also from mixed-status households and even some citizens (fearing consequences)civilrights.orgcivilrights.org. This could lead to an undercount and faulty data for all purposes (not just apportionment). In short, implementing a citizens-only apportionment is fraught with legal and practical challenges. Conclusion Excluding non-citizens from congressional apportionment in 2025 would significantly reshuffle House seats among the states – shifting representation away from immigrant-heavy states toward states with fewer immigrants. California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would lose seats, while states like Texas, Florida, and several others would gain. The net partisan effect would likely modestly help Republicans, as many of the lost seats would have been in Democratic strongholds and many of the gained seats would be in Republican-leaning areas. We estimate Democrats could lose roughly 3–5 House seats net under this scenario, slightly bolstering GOP margins. Such changes would have ripple effects on political power and resource allocation: immigrant-rich communities would have reduced representation and voice in Congress, and by extension less influence over federal decisions, while less diverse regions would gain influence. However, it is crucial to recognize that this scenario remains a hypothetical exercise. Under current law and constitutional interpretation, non-citizens must be counted in apportionmentthirdway.org. The proposal to exclude them clashes with a long lineage of law and practice upholding that congressional representation is for “all persons” residing in each state. Any attempt to implement a citizens-only count would face formidable legal challenges and likely be struck down as unconstitutional without an amendment. The debate, nonetheless, highlights the intersection of immigration and political representation: as the population of non-citizens is not evenly distributed, their inclusion or exclusion can alter the balance of power among states. This has made the census a contentious political issue in recent years. Moving forward, unless the Constitution is changed, the United States will continue the tradition begun in 1790 and reaffirmed in the 14th Amendment – allocating political representation based on the total population, inclusive of non-citizens, in the interest of equal representation for all communitiesthirdway.org. References: U.S. Census Bureau – 2020 Census Apportionment Results (official state populations and House seats)pewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. American Community Survey 2015–2019 – estimates of citizen and non-citizen populationsthearp.org. American Redistricting Project – “2020 Congressional Apportionment – Total Citizen Population” (analysis of House seat distribution using citizen-only populations)thearp.org. Center for Immigration Studies – “Tilting the Balance” (2024 report on immigration’s impact on apportionment; includes partisan lean analysis)cis.orgcis.org. Pew Research Center – “How removing unauthorized immigrants from census could affect House reapportionment” (2020 analysis of excluding undocumented immigrants)pewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. FactCheck.org – “Elon Musk Overstates Partisan Impact of Illegal Immigration on House Apportionment”(2024)factcheck.orgfactcheck.org. Third Way – “Is Illegal Immigration Really a Democratic Plot to Sway Apportionment?” (2024) – historical/legal discussion and review of researchthirdway.orgthirdway.org. Brennan Center for Justice – Alabama v. Commerce Dept. case summary (Alabama’s failed 2018 lawsuit on excluding undocumented from census)brennancenter.orgbrennancenter.org. The Leadership Conference – “Save the 2030 Census and Honor the Constitution: Vote No on H.R.151” (2025 fact sheet opposing citizen-only apportionment)civilrights.orgcivilrights.org. Electoral College Votes: Electoral College Reallocation if Undocumented Immigrants Are Excluded (2025 Census Scenario) The table below compares each state’s electoral votes in the 2024 election (based on the 2020 Census) with a revised allocation excluding undocumented immigrants from state populations. It also shows the estimated undocumented population in each state and the net change in electoral votes (House seats plus two senators) under the exclusion scenario: State Electoral Votes (2024) Undocumented Pop. (est.) Revised Electoral Votes Net Change Alabama 9 62,000migrationpolicy.org 9 0 Alaska 3 10,000migrationpolicy.org 3 0 Arizona 11 273,000migrationpolicy.org 12 +1 Arkansas 6 58,000migrationpolicy.org 6 0 California 54 1,800,000pewresearch.org 51 –3 Colorado 10 162,000migrationpolicy.org 10 0 Connecticut 7 113,000migrationpolicy.org 7 0 Delaware 3 24,000migrationpolicy.org 3 0 District of Columbia 3 21,000migrationpolicy.org 3 0 Florida 30 1,200,000pewresearch.org 32 +2 Georgia 16 339,000migrationpolicy.org 16 0 Hawaii 4 51,000migrationpolicy.org 4 0 Idaho 4 29,000migrationpolicy.org 5 +1 Illinois 19 400,000pewresearch.org 18 –1 Indiana 11 102,000migrationpolicy.org 11 0 Iowa 6 37,000migrationpolicy.org 6 0 Kansas 6 69,000migrationpolicy.org 6 0 Kentucky 8 46,000migrationpolicy.org 8 0 Louisiana 8 70,000migrationpolicy.org 8 0 Maine 4 5,000migrationpolicy.org 4 0 Maryland 10 225,000migrationpolicy.org 10 0 Massachusetts 11 209,000migrationpolicy.org 11 0 Michigan 15 91,000migrationpolicy.org 15 0 Minnesota 10 81,000migrationpolicy.org 10 0 Mississippi 6 25,000migrationpolicy.org 6 0 Missouri 10 50,000migrationpolicy.org 10 0 Montana 4 3,000migrationpolicy.org 4 0 Nebraska 5 42,000migrationpolicy.org 5 0 Nevada 6 168,000migrationpolicy.org 6 0 New Hampshire 4 11,000migrationpolicy.org 4 0 New Jersey 14 475,000pewresearch.org 14 0 New Mexico 5 63,000migrationpolicy.org 5 0 New York 28 650,000pewresearch.org 27 –1 North Carolina 16 296,000migrationpolicy.org 16 0 North Dakota 3 5,000migrationpolicy.org 3 0 Ohio 17 89,000migrationpolicy.org 17 0 Oklahoma 7 90,000migrationpolicy.org 7 0 Oregon 8 108,000migrationpolicy.org 7 –1 Pennsylvania 19 153,000migrationpolicy.org 19 0 Rhode Island 4 24,000migrationpolicy.org 4 0 South Carolina 9 88,000migrationpolicy.org 9 0 South Dakota 3 7,000migrationpolicy.org 3 0 Tennessee 11 128,000migrationpolicy.org 11 0 Texas 40 1,600,000pewresearch.org 41 +1 Utah 6 89,000migrationpolicy.org 7 +1 Vermont 3 3,000migrationpolicy.org 3 0 Virginia 13 251,000migrationpolicy.org 13 0 Washington 12 246,000migrationpolicy.org 12 0 West Virginia 4 4,000migrationpolicy.org 4 0 Wisconsin 10 70,000migrationpolicy.org 10 0 Wyoming 3 7,000migrationpolicy.org 3 0 Summary of Changes: Based on these projections, states with large undocumented immigrant populations would lose electoral votes, while several faster-growing states with fewer undocumented residents would gain. Notably, California(with an estimated 1.8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2022pewresearch.org) would drop to 51 electoral votes – 3 fewer than in 2024. This reflects California potentially losing two additional House seats on top of the one it already lost after 2020factcheck.orgfactcheck.org. New York (≈650,000 unauthorized in 2022pewresearch.org) and Illinois(~400,000pewresearch.org) would each lose one more seat, reducing them to 27 and 18 electoral votes, respectively. By contrast, Florida (≈1.2 million unauthorizedpewresearch.org) would gain about 2 extra electoral votes, reaching 32 total. Texas (≈1.6 millionpewresearch.org) would net +1 electoral vote, for 41 total. Several other states with relatively small unauthorized populations could pick up a seat – for example, Arizona (+1) and Idaho (+1) – due to their growing citizen populations and the reallocation of House seats from states like California and Illinois. Critically, some states would retain seats they might have otherwise lost. Pew Research Center’s analysis of the 2020 Census found that Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio would each have lost a House seat if apportionment were based on total population including undocumented immigrants – but would keep those seats if undocumented residents were excludedpewresearch.org. Our 2025 scenario likewise shows no change in electoral votes for those states, indicating they hold onto their representation. For instance, Alabama and Minnesota remain at 9 and 10 electoral votes, respectively, instead of dropping to 8 and 9 as might have occurred if all residents were countedpewresearch.org. Overall, 13 states see a change in electoral votes under this exclusion scenario. The largest gainers are Florida and a handful of mid-sized states in the West and South, while losses are concentrated in a few high-immigrant states. Importantly, the total shift is modest – a net transfer of only a few House seats. Prior studies of the 2020 apportionment found that counting or excluding unauthorized immigrants would have changed only about 6 seats, with minimal partisan impactthirdway.orgfactcheck.org. Our updated projections similarly suggest a limited effect on the balance of power. The Electoral College outcome would not be dramatically altered – the changes (e.g. Florida +2, California –3) would not have swung recent presidential elections, given margins on the order of dozens of electoral votesfactcheck.org. However, the trend since 2020 indicates that migration is bolstering populations in many Republican-leaning states. Between 2019 and 2023, about 95% of noncitizen population growth (including undocumented immigrants) occurred in GOP-led states – especially Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and even Kentuckythirdway.orgcato.org. If these patterns continue, excluding undocumented residents from the 2030 census could actually benefit red-leaning states more than blue statesthirdway.orgthirdway.org. In our 2025 scenario, states like Texas and Florida gain slightly, while California and New York lose representation – consistent with the idea that high-immigration “blue” states no longer enjoy a one-sided advantage from counting undocumented immigrants. In short, removing undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count would shuffle a few electoral votes among states, but it would not radically change the Electoral College mapfactcheck.orgthirdway.org. The main effect is that fast-growing states with smaller unauthorized populations (e.g. Florida, Arizona, Utah) would pick up one or two extra votes at the expense of states with large undocumented communities (e.g. California, Illinois)pewresearch.orgfactcheck.org. The overall balance between the two major parties would remain virtually unchanged in this hypothetical 2025 reallocationthirdway.org. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau apportionment data; Pew Research Center estimates of unauthorized immigrant populationspewresearch.orgpewresearch.org; Migration Policy Institute datamigrationpolicy.orgmigrationpolicy.org; Ballotpedia (2024 electoral votes by state)ballotpedia.orgballotpedia.org; Third Way and Cato Institute analyses of immigration’s impact on apportionmentthirdway.orgcato.org; FactCheck.org reportfactcheck.orgfactcheck.org. The revised projections are calculated using the method of equal proportions with state population estimates as of 2025.

The Israeli military reportedly used a 500lb (230kg) bomb to strike a crowded beachfront cafe frequented by activists, journalists, and local residents in Gaza on Monday. Such a powerful and indiscriminate weapon generates a massive [...] The post Report: IDF Used 500lb US Bomb In Attack On Busy Gaza Cafe appeared first on The People's Voice.

Benjamin Netanyahu has called for the elimination of Hamas following pressure from Donald Trump to end the war. In a speech on Wednesday, the Israeli prime minister said that in post-war Gaza: “There will not [...] The post Netanyahu Vows To Destroy ‘Hamastan’ appeared first on The People's Voice.

Flight attendants play a key role in the safety and comfort of flights in the United States and beyond. They have a lot on their plate, and yet, so many of them manage to find ways to go above and beyond for their passengers. During a Delta flight, one passenger was so blown away by the way a flight attendant was helping someone, they simply had to share the moment online. We’re not told if this moment took place before or after the plane took off. Either way, it’s clear that a passenger was experiencing quite a lot of anxiety. In fact, their anxiety had increased to the point of a panic attack. Luckily, one kind flight attendant stepped in to help them remain calm. See this heartwarming moment for yourself in the video below! @mama5jays ♬ original sound – Mama5jays Flight Attendant Caught Helping Passenger with Anxiety Attack Garners Praise Online Flight anxiety is a struggle that so many of us face. It’s no wonder so many people are taking the time to praise this thoughtful flight attendant for going out of her way to help this stranger. The video has gotten so popular, in fact, her very own son has seen it! Check out the comment he left below. TikTok “She deserves CEO pay. Panic attacks are no joke. You literally feel like you’re dying,” someone writes in reply to this sweet video. Others add, “Her voice is absolutely perfect for calming anxiety omg. I’d feel so safe with her” and “Are there awards for flight attendants like nurses and the daisy award? She needs an award.” This sweet video showcases just one of the many times a flight attendant has shown how much they care. Another great example comes from a Southwest flight — these newlyweds were delighted by a surprise “cake” from their flight attendant! You can find the source of this story’s featured image here! The post When Passenger Starts Having Anxiety Attack, Flight Attendant Knows Exactly How To Step In appeared first on InspireMore.

Betwixt The Sheets’ new series Royal Sex: Queen Victoria takes a look at the differing sex lives of four monarchs, beginning with Queen Victoria. With nine children, it can probably be assumed that Queen Victoria was no stranger to the sheets, but what do we actually know about her love (and sex) life? Was she the stiff, reserved monarch history remembers, or did a passionate fire burn beneath her stern facade?  To examine Victoria’s diaries, her passionate relationship and her society’s attitude to sex, Kate Lister is joined for a special episode of Betwixt The Sheets by Royal Historian Kate Williams and journalist Robert Hardman. Kate and Robert are cohosts of Queens, Kings and Dastardly Things, a podcast from the Daily Mail. Here we take a look at some of the episode’s key themes: Passion in the palace Queen Victoria’s voluminous diaries, containing over 62 million words, offer an unprecedented glimpse into her innermost thoughts and affections. These writings reveal an outpouring of love for Prince Albert, a devotion forged in their early marriage after both had endured miserable childhoods. In the episode, Kate Lister, Kate Williams and Robert Hardman explore how Victoria’s own words unveil a young woman deeply smitten. From admiring Albert’s “handsome white cashmere britches with nothing on underneath”, to her post-wedding night bliss, where she “didn’t think it would be possible to be so happy” and his delightful help with her stockings, their bond seemingly fulfilled her vision of a companionate marriage. However, royal duty and the swift succession of pregnancies soon introduced unexpected frustrations. Victoria’s first child, Princess Victoria (“Vicky”), arrived just 9 months after the wedding. In the podcast, you’ll hear how upper-class taboos, combined with a lack of understanding about natural conception, contributed to a challenging period for Victoria.  Betwixt The Sheets presenter Kate Lister (centre), with Robert Hardman (left) and Kate Williams (right) from The Daily Mail’s ‘Queens, Kings and Dastardly Things’ podcastImage Credit: History Hit The trials of royal childbirth For Queen Victoria, pregnancy was far more than a personal journey – as a reigning queen, it was a battle for control. While ‘confinement’ physically restricted her, Professor Kate Williams discusses how these periods of pregnancy also saw ministers sideline the Queen, allowing Prince Albert to assert greater influence, igniting a subtle power struggle within their marriage. Victoria was obligated to give birth in front of her ministers, separated only by a flimsy screen. This archaic practice weighed heavily on her, leading her, later in her pregnancies (specifically with Prince Leopold), to become the first monarch to use chloroform for pain relief during childbirth. The episode discusses why this was seen as a controversial choice. Despite these struggles, Victoria’s devotion to Albert remained evident. Her diaries are filled with affectionate descriptions, showcasing a relationship that, while marked by power struggles between monarch and husband, maintained a profound intimacy until his death. Victorian society and sexuality Was wider Victorian society truly as puritanical as often portrayed, or did a more complex reality exist beneath the surface of their buttoned-up exteriors? Kate Lister challenges the myth of Victorian prudishness, arguing that changing social attitudes and taboos, particularly among the rising middle class, shaped their public morality. Yet, this new facade didn’t suppress everything. The 19th century witnessed a surprising rise in pornographic materials, hinting at a thriving, discreet underworld. And while the British Empire exported a vision of “upright” behaviour, sex work simultaneously exploded, fuelled by rapid urbanisation and escalating poverty. ‘The “new woman” and her bicycle – there will be several varieties of her’ (1895) – F. Opper.Image Credit: Frederick Burr Opper, / Library of Congress / Public Domain Bikes, bodies, and royal myths The Victorian era even unveiled unexpected avenues for social change and hidden eroticism. The bicycle, initially adopted by Queen Victoria herself, became a powerful symbol of women’s liberation, challenging restrictive fashion and sparking new (albeit sometimes medically alarmist) discussions around women’s bodies. This unexpectedly transformed the bicycle into a surprisingly “sexy object” of the era. Finally, the podcast tackles persistent myths surrounding the royal couple. Did Prince Albert inspire a famous piercing? Was there truly a ‘sex button’ at Osborne House for royal intimacy? Kate, Robert and Kate delve into these intriguing questions and more.  Don’t miss Royal Sex: Queen Victoria to explore Queen Victoria’s private world and uncover the surprising realities of Victorian society’s attitudes towards sex, along with the intriguing truths behind some of the era’s most enduring myths. Subscribe to Betwixt The Sheets

All in a day's work.