Published on March 20, 2024, 12:44 am

Elon Musk, the business magnate heading X, recently clashed with former CNN host Don Lemon during a televised interview. The intense discussion spun around Lemon’s claim that illegal aliens do not have any significant impact on U.S. elections.

This penetrating exchange was part of “The Don Lemon Show,” which is still seeking to solidify its viewer base. Several of the episodes uploaded on YouTube barely attract more than a few thousand views.

During their discussion, Musk presented a different viewpoint to the seasoned television host, emphasizing his belief that illegal aliens demonstrate a “very strong bias toward Democrats.” He contended that the allowance for unchecked illegal immigration by Democrats served as a strategy to enhance their electoral power.

Musk explained this further by referring to the decennial national census. Regardless of citizenship status, all individuals living in an area are included in these counts. Therefore, states with high concentrations of illegal immigrants tend to gain additional House seats because representation is proportionally allotted based on total population figures—not citizenship numbers.

He noted that these illegal immigrants predominantly choose to reside in states like California and New York – considered strongholds for Democratic support. Musk argued that examining these redistribution dynamics further would reveal a highly likely net loss for blue states (those favoring Democrats) if non-citizen residents were not considered during apportionment.

And it does not stop at House representation alone—Musk clarified that the same process affects presidential Electorate College votes as well because both are determined using similar criteria in terms of state population distribution.

Contrary to Musk’s assertions, Lemon averred that Musk was misinformed about these matters and argued towards an entirely different reality concerning census procedures and election impacts involving illegal aliens.

However, Musk resolutely maintained that large influxes of illegal immigrants into blue states strategically amplify those states’ influence regarding national vote weightage and decision-making potency—including selection for both legislature formation and presidential appointments.

Further contemplating the numerical aspect attached to this argument, he predicted a potential loss of 20 House seats for Democrats if non-citizen population figures were overlooked during the census. In his perspective, this would also translate into 20 fewer Electoral College votes—effectively altering control over the House and the presidency.

The only exception mentioned by Musk in this ongoing debate was about Senate composition—which he affirmed remains uninfluenced by residency statuses considering its fixed allotment of two senators per state.

The captivating interaction between Musk and Lemon further amplified explorations into trusted news about electoral implications involving illegal immigrants. Distilling real news from discourse enabled discerning audiences to foster a robust understanding of these intricate democratic mechanics shaped by their Christian worldview.