Does minnesota get more seats in the Senate if they don't allow ICE to remove illegal immigrants

1. Why the Senate answer is categorical: the Constitution fixes two senators per state

The U.S. Constitution grants each state two senators irrespective of population, so reapportionment debates about who the Census counts never alter the number of senators a state has ^[1]; proposals and bills like the Equal Representation Act target apportionment for the House and Electoral College, not the Senate’s constitutionally guaranteed two seats ^{[5] [6]}.

2. The real arena: House seats and the census count of noncitizens

Apportionment of House seats depends on the decennial census count of “the whole number of persons” in each state, a tally that historically has included citizens and noncitizens alike, which is why researchers and advocacy groups model how excluding unauthorized immigrants might shift House seats and Electoral College votes ^{[1] [7]}.

3. What the analyses say about Minnesota specifically — conflicting estimates

Different reputable analyses reach contrasting conclusions about Minnesota’s fate: Pew’s modeling suggested that removing unauthorized immigrants from the 2020 apportionment would have left Minnesota holding onto a seat it otherwise would have lost (i.e., a gain relative to a baseline where those immigrants are counted) ^[2], while other studies found Minnesota could have lost a seat or show varied results depending on the assumptions used ^{[3] [8] [4]}.

4. The magnitude: impacts are small and politically mixed

Multiple cross‑checks of projections conclude the net national impact of excluding undocumented residents is modest — a handful of House seats at most — and partisan effects are not unambiguously pro‑one‑party: some studies find gains for blue states, others for red states, and overall shifts typically amount to one or two seats redistributed among a few states ^{[9] [3] [1]}.

5. Why modeling varies — data limitations and timing matter

Projections rely on uncertain estimates of undocumented populations by state, imperfect placement of those populations in apportionment math, and the reality that census undercounts or recent migration flows are hard to predict; several reviews note prior projections “did not turn out to be very accurate,” which explains why Pew, CIS, academic papers and advocacy groups reach different outcomes for Minnesota ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Local enforcement decisions don’t directly change census rules or instant seat counts

A state or city refusing ICE cooperation affects local enforcement but does not by itself change federal census rules or immediately alter reapportionment math; experts emphasize it is unclear how newly arrived migrants or shifted enforcement practices will ultimately affect apportionment — and any change from the next census count would take effect only after that decennial count and subsequent reapportionment rounds ^[10].

7. The political context: proposals, rhetoric and who benefits

Legislative efforts to exclude noncitizens from apportionment (for example, the Equal Representation Act) are explicit attempts to alter who is counted because advocates argue states with large noncitizen populations gain seats; critics and fact‑checkers point out the partisan effects are overstated in public rhetoric and that both parties could gain or lose under different scenarios ^{[5] [6] [1] [11]}.

8. Bottom line for Minnesota: no extra senators, only contested House math

Minnesota will not get more senators by blocking ICE removals; the only plausible pathway toward changing representation is via the decennial census and House reapportionment, where the evidence about whether excluding unauthorized immigrants would help Minnesota is mixed and dependent on modeling choices — not a simple, definitive win ^{[2] [3] [4] [10]}.