Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[Captain Caveman]

It's unconstitutional.

Are you able to stand in Trump's shoes and see the world through his eyes? Serious question. Is that something you could do?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Counting illegals aliens in a census, is just as illegal as them crossing the border illegally

How is it illegal?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Counting illegals aliens in a census, is just as illegal as them crossing the border illegally

By your reply you are stating that crossing the border illegally is legal...dumb-ass~

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I have a sneaky feeling you wouldn't have said that if a Democrat president was doing the same thing.

Nope. I would abhor it no matter who proposed this.
Trump stands alone in this madness, among all Presidents-- R or D.
He is attempting to alter the very foundations of our country to favor his party.

Him and his minions~

Chat GPT:


If illegal aliens (unauthorized immigrants) were excluded from the U.S. Census count used for congressional apportionment, the number of House seats allocated to each state would shift. This is because apportionment is based on total population, not just citizens or legal residents.

Background:​

• The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2) requires a count of the total population (the "whole number of persons") in each state every 10 years to apportion House seats.
• This includes citizens and non-citizens, regardless of immigration status.
• The number of seats in the House of Representatives is fixed at 435 and apportioned among the 50 states based on population.

---

Impact of Excluding Unauthorized Immigrants:​

If unauthorized immigrants were excluded from the count:

1. States with large undocumented populations (like California, Texas, Florida, and New York) would likely lose seats.
2. States with smaller immigrant populations would gain seats (often more rural or Midwestern states).

---

Estimated Shifts (Based on Recent Analyses):​

Using data from the 2020 Census and estimates from the Pew Research Center and other demographers:

• California could lose 1 to 2 seats
• Texas could lose 1 seat
• Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois might each lose 1 seat
• States like Ohio, Alabama, Minnesota, and Montana might gain seats as a result

This would not change the total number of representatives (still 435), but it would redistribute seats away from high-immigration states to others.

---

Political Ramifications:​

• This change would likely benefit Republicans, since states that would gain seats tend to lean red, while those that would lose seats tend to lean blue.
• It would also reduce federal funding and political influence for high-immigration states.

---

Summary Table (Illustrative, not exact):​

State	Est. Seat Loss/Gain if Unauthorized Immigrants Excluded
California	-1 to -2
Texas	-1
Florida	-1
New York	-1
Illinois	-1
New Jersey	-1
Ohio	+1
Minnesota	+1
Alabama	+1
Montana	+1

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Indians not taxed were exempted from the Census by Constitution, not that they weren’t persons.

WW

I agree with you. Indian persons were exempted from the Census.

 

[Crepitus]

Hilarious to see a leftard pretend to care about the Constitution.

Not as hilarious as you finally admitting you don't.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I agree with you. Indian persons were exempted from the Census.

Say it with me:
Non-taxed Indians~

 

[Crepitus]

Can you be more specific? Collecting information on how much of our population is citizens is unconstitutional?

The Whole Number. That is what the Constitution says.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree with you. Indian persons were exempted from the Census.

Except now you are purposefully not stating facts.

Indians were not exempted, Indian persons not taxed were exempted.

WW

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Except now you are purposefully not stating facts.

Indians were not exempted, Indian persons not taxed were exempted.

WW

Nope. Your spin failed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. Your spin failed.

Only in MAGA world is the language in the Constitution “spin”.

You sure you aren’t one of those “living document” leftist?

WW

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

World Wathcer is right, LaughsatLeftist is wrong.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Say it with me:
Non-taxed Indians~

Ok. Non-taxed Indians were exempted from the census.

Now say it with me:
Persons were exempted from the census.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

World Watcher is right, LaughsatLeftist is wrong.

 

[Crepitus]

If thats true, then you have nothing to worry about, but if its untrue, the democrat party is straight up fucked. Hopefully youre a constitutional scholar and not just some dipshit lefty who is making claims that he cant back up.

It is true.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

"the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

 

[Crepitus]

Is that what your masters are telling you? LOL

That's what the Constitution says.

 

[Rawley]

That's what the Constitution says.

LOL

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

LOL

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

"the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

 

[Crepitus]

Are you able to stand in Trump's shoes and see the world through his eyes? Serious question. Is that something you could do?

I'm far too sane.

You are too.

 

[skye]

Counting illegals aliens in a census, is just as illegal as them crossing the border illegally

Exactly