You want to count them fine but count them as illegals and form the voting districts along the lines of legitimate voters and not an ideologic minority base and thousands who cannot vote to give one party more power in congress.

But that simply isn't the way it plays out. Large populations of illegal immigrants are dispersed throughout the Midwest and South, in heavily Republican States and districts.

Conservatives have no problem counting them for allotment of needed services.

But demanding that they be excluded from the Census implicitly entails that they aren't counted for "allotment of needed services." It's also a cloud-cuckoo demand, with no possibility of being enforced (and in point of fact, I haven't heard any demands from Republican leaders or legislators that the Census do so. If there's any buzz about this at all- I don't follow every pronouncement on this issue- it's simply cheap talk to build political capital, with no intention of acually changing policy.)

The preference, however, would be to advocate legislation and enforce laws that encourage legal immigration and secures the borders like the majority of americans want.

That concern isn't limited to Republicans. Plenty of Democrats share it. There's an additional measure of bipartisan agreement on various problems associated with legal immigration, as well. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) has been one of the most outspoken people in Congress speaking out against the granting of work permits to foreign nationals in order to undercut American workers.

The majority of Wall Street political contributions were made to Democrats, the majority of Wall Street Executives are Democrats.

I'm glad you brought this issue up, because it deserves more examination- certainly more than I'm going to give it in this post. A lot more.

"Wall Street" isn't the only big money in the country.

Furthermore, "Wall Street" isn't a person. But for general introductory purposes, as a synonym for "the U.S. financial sector", it works as a "quick and dirty" term.

The way that matters seem to have played out is that more people on Wall Street and in the financial sector favor Democrats as far as financing their elections- although (and it's crucial to note this) they contribute to Republicans, as well.

Mostly, I get the impression that the contributors in the financial sector just like Winners, more than any preference for Democrats or Republicans.

The brokers and bankers tend to be more "socially liberal", although that's a stereotype that's far from ironclad- and, more importantly, it rarely translates into influence over social policy.

(Case in point: It was the Supreme Court who legalized private gay sexual relations- with the vote of Antonin Scalia- not "Wall Street." Beyond that, I don't think it's possible to trace the societal trend of modernity toward increasing cosmopolitanism and tolerance to a political agenda, or to a political conspiracy. What do I notice is the use of political agendas to block that trend.)

The Big Money that underpins the Republicans tends to be more concentrated in the Oil and Resource industries, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the largest landowners and developers- and the majority of that money does get donated to Republicans and Republican-associated causes, at least at the national level. However, in presidential election campaigns, plenty of political contribution money from those sources also gets disbursed to Democratic candidates for president- particularly once they get the nomination. Not too different than Wall Street in that respect, they both hedge their bets, and keep a hand in with both parties.

(That reason alone should be sufficient to incite a popular groundswell to support Instant Runoff Voting, to enable the rise of new political parties. Because the number of Americans who are discouraged/disgusted/cynical about both major parties is HUGE.)

The other thing to bear in mind is that as far as anyone I know can see, "Wall Street", the oil and resource industries, the Military-Homeland Security-Police-Prison Quartermastery Complex, and the huge number of large corporations who have transferred their operations and tax base offshore all share more common interests than they act in opposition to each other.

That state of affairs pretty much destroys the "Democrat-peacenik"/"Republican fiscal responsibility" nonsense. That's cartoon politics, being fed to the gullible.

The highest tax rate people are 58% Democrat and they are very much more than the lowest end that make that $375,000.00 you've tried to associate them with.

First of all, in the absence of hard data, you're talking through your hat.

Second of all, if a clear majority of of that cohort of 1.1 million people are of the opinion that they already live quite well- and in point of fact think that they're undertaxed, and would support an upper-income tax increase- they have a right to that opinion, and almost certainly have more knowledge of the level of material comfort afforded to their income level than someone who has never experienced that level of affluence.

That would be an interesting idea: put on a well-moderated debate between a Democrat and a Republican of the same income, on the subject of tax fairness.

But, well, the American news media doesn't do "debate", unless it looks like lowbrow circus act...