The illegal alien problem

[Hafar1014]

The Fourteen Amendment is not a "problem," nor have you "solved" it. Apportionment in the United States is based on persons.

A baby is person can they vote. Look cry all you want they will not be counted in the 2030 census assuming any are still here.

 

[Greenbeard]

A baby is person can they vote. Look cry all you want they will not be counted in the 2030 census assuming any are still here.

Babies are counted in the Census.

 

[pknopp]

Illegals hide when the census takers come around.

Im sure many do.

 

[pknopp]

THAT is the problem: At the time that the US Constitution was being ratified, there was no such thing as a US citizen That is why the term "person" was used instead of "citizen." That unique situation no longer exists and was never intended to include future illegal aliens.

There is a process to change the Constitution if you feel it needs changed.

 

[Cassandro]

Apportionment is governed by the Fourteenth Amendment which uses both "citizen" and "person" in different contexts. Apportionment is based on persons, not citizens, and deliberately so.

If you are going to cite the 14th Amendment, please quote the specific passages you are referring to such as:

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens." This does not include illegal aliens.

Section 2: "Representatives shall be apportioned according to the whole number of persons in each State." This wording was was repeated from Article I Section 2 of the Constitution in order to abolish its provision to count only 2/3 of the number of "other persons" (slaves).

Section 3: (This prevented former Confederates from holding federal elective office.)

Section 4: "Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of any insurrection...or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave..." Does this prohibit reparations for slavery?

Section 5: "Congress shall have the power to enforce...these provisions."

 

[Winston]

All thats needed is an order and confirmation by the SC on what a person is. Its a legal voter. Dont need luck we have the SC.

So, a legal voter is a person. Someone under the age of 18, can't be a legal voter, guess they are not a person anymore. I mean damn, can you people make up your mind? I thought life began at a conception, a fertilized egg is considered a person, and currently is under federal law. But a fourteen year old citizen is not?

You really don't think things through do you? Can you not see where you are headed? Congressional representatives are supposed to represent EVERYONE in their district. Citizens, non-citizens, legal, illegal, every ******* one. Do you want those representatives to only stand up for the elite few? Do you honestly believe you are a member of the elite few? Or worse yet, that somehow your "Grandmaw's Simple Shitass" rule applies, simple Shitass beliefs somehow align with theirs?

Imagine owning a bar, restaurant, night club. I mean you are in the newly rebuilt downtown and you are thumping. The businesses around you, they thrive. But there is a group of elite citizens, I guess we could call them "persons", they love youyr place. The food, the service. They just don't like the rest of the riff/raff that comes in. So they "propose", more like mandate, some county ordinance or something, that you become membership only. Then, they continually increase the requirements for membership. Like only persons are accepted.

Before long, well those elite few, they can enjoy their meals, tip the piano man nicely. No crowds, no riff/raff, oh, and no thriving businesses nearby. They have literally poisoned your well, and for their own benefit. I don't see how it is not clear that is precisely what is happening now.

 

[Cassandro]

So, a legal voter is a person. Someone under the age of 18, can't be a legal voter, guess they are not a person anymore. I mean damn, can you people make up your mind? I thought life began at a conception, a fertilized egg is considered a person, and currently is under federal law. But a fourteen year old citizen is not?

You really don't think things through do you? Can you not see where you are headed? Congressional representatives are supposed to represent EVERYONE in their district. Citizens, non-citizens, legal, illegal, every ******* one. Do you want those representatives to only stand up for the elite few? Do you honestly believe you are a member of the elite few? Or worse yet, that somehow your "Grandmaw's Simple Shitass" rule applies, simple Shitass beliefs somehow align with theirs?

Imagine owning a bar, restaurant, night club. I mean you are in the newly rebuilt downtown and you are thumping. The businesses around you, they thrive. But there is a group of elite citizens, I guess we could call them "persons", they love youyr place. The food, the service. They just don't like the rest of the riff/raff that comes in. So they "propose", more like mandate, some county ordinance or something, that you become membership only. Then, they continually increase the requirements for membership. Like only persons are accepted.

Before long, well those elite few, they can enjoy their meals, tip the piano man nicely. No crowds, no riff/raff, oh, and no thriving businesses nearby. They have literally poisoned your well, and for their own benefit. I don't see how it is not clear that is precisely what is happening now.

Nice little stories, but irrelevant to the OP. The Constitution does not require that illegal aliens be counted for purposes of Congressional representation.

 

[d0gbreath]

In 1790 we were the illegal aliens, so we wanted to be counted.

 

[Lesh]

We never had a massive invasion like this and when democrats started manipulating the census it’s time for change. The purpose is apportionment so illegals can be counted but not used in apportioning seats in the house. Count them separately. In any case most will be gone before that

Of course we did. How the **** do you think we GOT here?

WE were the invaders

 

[Lesh]

Nice little stories, but irrelevant to the OP. The Constitution does not require that illegal aliens be counted for purposes of Congressional representation.

I believe it says “all persons “.

Am I wrong?

 

[Hafar1014]

I believe it says “all persons “.

Am I wrong?

Whats a person? We can simply count illegals separately so they cant cover up the migration from democrat cities. They are still counted just not used in apportionment

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Has nothing to do with it. The Constitution calls for counting all, here officially or not.

Then we have to throw them out faster.

 

[Hafar1014]

Then we have to throw them out faster.

Or count them separately so they cant be used to apportion seats

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All thats needed is an order and confirmation by the SC on what a person is. Its a legal voter. Dont need luck we have the SC.

That's not what the Constitution says. On that, you are incorrect. Voters don't matter. Women, slaves, and children who couldn't vote were always counted in some way.

 

[Hafar1014]

That's not what the Constitution says. On that, you are incorrect. Voters don't matter. Women, slaves, and children who couldn't vote were always counted in some way.

Illegals can be counted separately and not used in apportionment

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Illegals can be counted separately and not used in apportionment

Never said that, but your statement was incorrect. That's what I do!

 

[Winston]

Nice little stories, but irrelevant to the OP. The Constitution does not require that illegal aliens be counted for purposes of Congressional representation.

Are illegal aliens free persons?

 

[Hafar1014]

Never said that, but your statement was incorrect. That's what I do!

Why cant they be counted separately. They only have be counted not used to determine seats in the house

Are illegal aliens free persons?

No and they cant vote so they must not be counted for apportionment. Fugitives arent free thy just havent been caught yetr

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Whats a person? We can simply count illegals separately so they cant cover up the migration from democrat cities. They are still counted just not used in apportionment

Where is the legal justification for the difference in the Constitution?

 

[Winston]

Why cant they be counted separately. They only have be counted not used to determine seats in the house

No and they cant vote so they must not be counted for apportionment. Fugitives arent free thy just havent been caught yetr

Could slaves vote? They were counted for apportionment, albeit at 3/5th a person. But counted, and counted for apportionment. Could children vote? Nope, Counted for purpose of apportionment. Women, could they vote? Nope, counted for purpose of apportionment.

The funny thing, this whole question, about who should be counted for the purpose of apportionment, was hotly debated during the Constitutional Convention. Matter of fact, it almost caused the entire convention to fail. In the end they rallied around Hamilton's quote,

“There can be no truer principle than this – that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government.”