Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[martybegan]

I don't troll, Mashmont.

I smash the trollers.

 

[Wobbly]

You are mentally unstable. I never said they were not counted in the census. We had been talking about the past.

Yes, you did. I proved it. Don't be so childish. And, Natives have always been since 1890. Something someone claiming to be a Native here would likely know.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Of course Dimocrats will scream bloody murder, since they have zero respect for citizenship, and see illegals no differently than their fellow citizens.

This would be challenged in the courts immediately of course, since that's about all Dims are good for these days.

The solution would be to simply exempt the illegal data count from the equation that creates the congressional districts.

Yup...that would be the simplest for sure--except for this lil thing we like to call...the Constitution.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, you did. I proved it. Don't be so childish. And, Natives have always been since 1890. Something someone claiming to be a Native here would likely know.

Venting and lying.

 

[Rogue AI]

We are talking about the specific subset of Native Americans, who are now all taxed. So that exclusion doesn't apply.

The exclusion also doesn't apply to those that are not "Indians not taxed" (Native Americans).

WW

The whole Indian thing is rather a red herring, the historical fix to that and every other census based counting issue is not. Over two hundred years of precedence has been set and accepted that an act of Congress can define who is or isn't subject to counting for the purpose of apportionment. Not counting illegal aliens is well within existing accepted precedent.

 

[Wobbly]

Venting and lying.

Would you like to try to explain why someone who claims to be Native is so ignorant of Native history? Is there any chance that you will ever back up anything you spew?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Would you like to try to explain why someone who claims to be Native is so ignorant of Native history? Is there any chance that you will ever back up anything you spew?

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are a fascist, no prog liberal. You are mentally ill.

To the OP: the census is to count all people in the nation.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I doubt that this is going to happen anytime soon--as it would face considerable Constitutional challenges.


The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, states:



And the 14th Amendment, Section 2, reaffirms:



This includes citizens and non-citizens alike—legal permanent residents, visa holders, and undocumented immigrants.

The Supreme Court has never upheld an interpretation that allows the federal government to exclude non-citizens from the decennial census for purposes of apportionment. In fact, legal precedent affirms that:

All persons residing in the U.S. must be counted, regardless of citizenship status.

The U.S. Constitution mandates counting the “whole number of persons” in each state for apportionment.
This does not permit restricting the census count to only U.S. citizens.

Any attempt to exclude non-citizens would almost certainly face significant constitutional challenges and is inconsistent with existing legal interpretation.

But you lefties hate the constitution... Because you're totalitarin subhuman nazi rats

 

[Rogue AI]

That was after the Constitution was written.

Yeah, that means the Constitution applied and the initial governance handled by the Founders themselves. There is no greater proof of intent than looking at what they actually did. Listening to liberals today you might believe the Founders wrote the Constitution and disappeared, leaving the door open to radical interpretation. The Founders governed for decades as they intended.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yeah, that means the Constitution applied and the initial governance handled by the Founders themselves. There is no greater proof of intent than looking at what they actually did. Listening to liberals today you might believe the Founders wrote the Constitution and disappeared, leaving the door open to radical interpretation. The Founders governed for decades as they intended.

In fact, you just defined MAGA and its approach to the Constitution.

 

[Rogue AI]

In fact, you just defined MAGA and its approach to the Constitution.

Yeah, as the Founders intended. Glad I am getting through to you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yeah, as the Founders intended. Glad I am getting through to you.

The Founders certainly did not intend a static, unmovable document.

You are

 

[Rogue AI]

The Founders certainly did not intend a static, unmovable document.

You are View attachment 1146107

That's why they created the amendment process. Try harder.

 

[postman]

The whole Indian thing is rather a red herring, the historical fix to that and every other census based counting issue is not. Over two hundred years of precedence has been set and accepted that an act of Congress can define who is or isn't subject to counting for the purpose of apportionment. Not counting illegal aliens is well within existing accepted precedent.

Re: Congress can define who is or isn't subject to counting for the purpose of apportionment.

This is where you didn't read the constitution. It grants certain single directional powers, such as congress can admit a state to the union, but doesn't have to power to kick a state out of the union.

Similarly congress through it's power to determine naturalization, can grant citizenship, but it can't take it away.

So congress included all native americans as taxable citizens to be counted.
.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's why they created the amendment process. Try harder.

Then use it.

 

[Rogue AI]

Re: Congress can define who is or isn't subject to counting for the purpose of apportionment.

This is where you didn't read the constitution. It grants certain single directional powers, such as congress can admit a state to the union, but doesn't have to power to kick a state out of the union.

Similarly congress through it's power to determine naturalization, can grant citizenship, but it can't take it away.

So congress included all native americans as taxable citizens to be counted.
.

Wrong, I have read it, the courts have accepted it, and history has proven it.

Don't ignore territorial governance, that also plays a significant factor here. All under the watchful eyes of the very men who wrote the Constitution. This ridiculous liberal attempt to play at textualism through revisionist history will fail utterly and be exposed for the fraud it is.

 

[Rogue AI]

Then use it.

That would be your task, history and precedence is on my side.

 

[postman]

Wrong, I have read it, the courts have accepted it, and history has proven it.

Don't ignore territorial governance, that also plays a significant factor here. All under the watchful eyes of the very men who wrote the Constitution. This ridiculous liberal attempt to play at textualism through revisionist history will fail utterly and be exposed for the fraud it is.

Just because the constitution grants to congress certain powers, unless specifically enumerated, they do not have the reciprocal power.

Such as congress has the power to subpoena.
It doesn't have to power to nullify a subpoena.

 

[postman]

That would be your task, history and precedence is on my side.

I already pointed out they've been counting illegal aliens since at least 1809. So you're on the wrong side of history

 

[postman]

Dred Scot worst SC decision ever...very closely followed by Citizens United~

While you disagree with Dred Scott, if you read it carefully, it's actually an indictment of the racist nature of the United States. It pointed out that the majority of states, through it's actions and its laws did not grant them citizenship or even personhood.
And since citizenship flowed from the states to the federal government, so did their racist views.