So Precisely How Is A Question About Citizenship "Political"?

[mudwhistle]

More of the usual nonsense.

“This untimely, unnecessary, and untested citizenship question will disrupt planning at a critical point, undermine years of painstaking preparation, and increase costs significantly, putting a successful, accurate count at risk,” Gupta, now the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “The question is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households – native- and foreign-born, citizen and non-citizen – about the confidentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities may use that information.”

Idiots. Citizenship status is not confidential.

Commerce Department Decides To Add A Question About Citizenship To 2020 Census | HuffPost

It's supposed to be a secret.
Democrat voters are too poor to get citizenship OR VOTER I. D.s.

 

[Care4all]

Dems just want more EC votes for their shit holes.
Nothing unconstitutional about it.

2.5 to 3 million illegals in California, near all the rest of the 11 to 20 million are in "Red States"....

But note, the Constitution does not state that each state gets a representative in congress for every "X" amount of citizens in their States....it says PEOPLE in their State.....

This, ladies and germs, is a liberal snowflake.

I guess this is a confirmation that our founders, who wrote the Constitution WERE liberals, then, eh?

 

[Care4all]

it will be challenged by one side or the other and will make it to the SC, I suppose, to make a decision on constitutionality, I'm guessing....?

 

[TNHarley]

Dems just want more EC votes for their shit holes.
Nothing unconstitutional about it.

2.5 to 3 million illegals in California, near all the rest of the 11 to 20 million are in "Red States"....

But note, the Constitution does not state that each state gets a representative in congress for every "X" amount of citizens in their States....it says PEOPLE in their State.....

This, ladies and germs, is a liberal snowflake.

I guess this is a confirmation that our founders, who wrote the Constitution WERE liberals, then, eh?

Please dont confuse actual liberals with leftists.

 

[Care4all]

ok, just checked, I was wrong about founders, this is covered in the 14th which was 1868

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Dems just want more EC votes for their shit holes.
Nothing unconstitutional about it.

2.5 to 3 million illegals in California, near all the rest of the 11 to 20 million are in "Red States"....

But note, the Constitution does not state that each state gets a representative in congress for every "X" amount of citizens in their States....it says PEOPLE in their State.....

This, ladies and germs, is a liberal snowflake.

I guess this is a confirmation that our founders, who wrote the Constitution WERE liberals, then, eh?

Not by current definition, no.

 

[Care4all]

Undocumented immigrants DO NOT HAVE civil rights and civil liberties protected by the Constitution. Do Russian, Chinese, and Iranians have civil rights and civil liberties protected by our constitution? Of course not.

Fourteenth Amendment. noun. 1. an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, defining national citizenship and forbidding the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens or other persons.

 

[Care4all]

gosh, I should research things before I open my mouth!!!

It;s the 14th, Section 2....plus I think it was amended again.... on the Indian thingy....they could not stop the native Americans from voting even if they paid no taxes....and also amended to 18 yrs old and not 21.... etc

I'm not certain I fully understand what they say in it?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can understand both sides on this issue.

Yes, it is for political purpose and the Constitution does not require it and no one has ever required it....

and if it is instituted, then people who have undocummented people in their household will simply not give an accurate account of how many people are in their household....and America/ the USA will not have an accurate account of how many people are living in this country....

Or, what's to prevent them from lying?

Is the government going to hire a thousand people to somehow verify it?

It would help us, the Democrats, in states like Texas and Florida and Arizona, Arkansas etc, if the illegals were removed or not counted in the census for the purpose of Congressional districts, which is based on census population....if they only count citizens in the census then these red states will have fewer Representatives than they have now....they get a representative for every 700,000 citizens or so.....though Democrats would lose a few representative positions as well in California....

Good then California will lose some of its ILLEGAL representation in Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

gosh, I should research things before I open my mouth!!!

It;s the 14th, Section 2....plus I think it was amended again.... on the Indian thingy....they could not stop the native Americans from voting even if they paid no taxes....and also amended to 18 yrs old and not 21.... etc

I'm not certain I fully understand what they say in it?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Notice how the right to VOTE means only those with it
get counted?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dems just want more EC votes for their shit holes.
Nothing unconstitutional about it.

2.5 to 3 million illegals in California, near all the rest of the 11 to 20 million are in "Red States"....

But note, the Constitution does not state that each state gets a representative in congress for every "X" amount of citizens in their States....it says PEOPLE in their State.....

This, ladies and germs, is a liberal snowflake.

I guess this is a confirmation that our founders, who wrote the Constitution WERE liberals, then, eh?

Actually no since they said those denied the vote did NOT get counted for purposes of Federal Elections it is in your own quote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

gosh, I should research things before I open my mouth!!!

It;s the 14th, Section 2....plus I think it was amended again.... on the Indian thingy....they could not stop the native Americans from voting even if they paid no taxes....and also amended to 18 yrs old and not 21.... etc

I'm not certain I fully understand what they say in it?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

So we NEED the question since ILLEGAL aliens can not vote and can NOT be used to determine the number of Representatives a State gets.

 

[otto105]

More of the usual nonsense.

“This untimely, unnecessary, and untested citizenship question will disrupt planning at a critical point, undermine years of painstaking preparation, and increase costs significantly, putting a successful, accurate count at risk,” Gupta, now the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “The question is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households – native- and foreign-born, citizen and non-citizen – about the confidentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities may use that information.”

Idiots. Citizenship status is not confidential.

Commerce Department Decides To Add A Question About Citizenship To 2020 Census | HuffPost

The Constitution requires the census to count ALL people.


Explain that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More of the usual nonsense.

“This untimely, unnecessary, and untested citizenship question will disrupt planning at a critical point, undermine years of painstaking preparation, and increase costs significantly, putting a successful, accurate count at risk,” Gupta, now the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “The question is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households – native- and foreign-born, citizen and non-citizen – about the confidentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities may use that information.”

Idiots. Citizenship status is not confidential.

Commerce Department Decides To Add A Question About Citizenship To 2020 Census | HuffPost

The Constitution requires the census to count ALL people.


Explain that.

It also states that those not allowed to vote do not get counted for representation of the State. The question is necessary to determine the population allowed to vote.

 

[Zander]

Fun fact!!

The 2000 census asked the same question.

Who was POTUS in 2000?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

More of the usual nonsense.

“This untimely, unnecessary, and untested citizenship question will disrupt planning at a critical point, undermine years of painstaking preparation, and increase costs significantly, putting a successful, accurate count at risk,” Gupta, now the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “The question is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households – native- and foreign-born, citizen and non-citizen – about the confidentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities may use that information.”

Idiots. Citizenship status is not confidential.

Commerce Department Decides To Add A Question About Citizenship To 2020 Census | HuffPost

The Constitution requires the census to count ALL people.


Explain that.

Nothing to explain.

The Constitution requires the census to count ALL people.

Citizenship status is not confidential.

 

[otto105]

More of the usual nonsense.

“This untimely, unnecessary, and untested citizenship question will disrupt planning at a critical point, undermine years of painstaking preparation, and increase costs significantly, putting a successful, accurate count at risk,” Gupta, now the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “The question is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households – native- and foreign-born, citizen and non-citizen – about the confidentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities may use that information.”

Idiots. Citizenship status is not confidential.

Commerce Department Decides To Add A Question About Citizenship To 2020 Census | HuffPost

The Constitution requires the census to count ALL people.


Explain that.

It also states that those not allowed to vote do not get counted for representation of the State. The question is necessary to determine the population allowed to vote.

The Constitution requires ALL people to be counted.


Explain that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More of the usual nonsense.

“This untimely, unnecessary, and untested citizenship question will disrupt planning at a critical point, undermine years of painstaking preparation, and increase costs significantly, putting a successful, accurate count at risk,” Gupta, now the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. “The question is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households – native- and foreign-born, citizen and non-citizen – about the confidentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities may use that information.”

Idiots. Citizenship status is not confidential.

Commerce Department Decides To Add A Question About Citizenship To 2020 Census | HuffPost

The Constitution requires the census to count ALL people.


Explain that.

It also states that those not allowed to vote do not get counted for representation of the State. The question is necessary to determine the population allowed to vote.

The Constitution requires ALL people to be counted.


Explain that.

I dont need to I am not advocating they not be counted I am simply pointing out that BY law we need to know how many people can not vote for purposes of the census.

 

[Care4all]

I can understand both sides on this issue.

Yes, it is for political purpose and the Constitution does not require it and no one has ever required it....

and if it is instituted, then people who have undocummented people in their household will simply not give an accurate account of how many people are in their household....and America/ the USA will not have an accurate account of how many people are living in this country....

Or, what's to prevent them from lying?

Is the government going to hire a thousand people to somehow verify it?

It would help us, the Democrats, in states like Texas and Florida and Arizona, Arkansas etc, if the illegals were removed or not counted in the census for the purpose of Congressional districts, which is based on census population....if they only count citizens in the census then these red states will have fewer Representatives than they have now....they get a representative for every 700,000 citizens or so.....though Democrats would lose a few representative positions as well in California....

Good then California will lose some of its ILLEGAL representation in Congress.

that breaks the constitution, where it requires all people to be counted for representation allotment, NOT just citizens....

 

[Erinwltr]

What are you doing even reading HuffPo?

I read far more leftist material than I do material that already agrees with me. I need no reinforcement of my beliefs.

I find it important and wise to know what the loony opposition is thinking. Early warnings can stave off a host of mischief.

" I need no reinforcement of my beliefs." Interesting little insight into you, there.