Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[Hafar1014]

All people have to be counted. Do non citizens count when figuring out congressional seats?

Non citizens must not be counted as they distort the apportionment of EC votes and house seats. Only legal voters must be counted to protect the democratic process

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Non citizens must not be counted as they distort the apportionment of EC votes and house seats. Only legal voters must be counted to protect the democratic process

Then change the Constitution to say that citizens only can be counted.

 

[80zephyr]

Non citizens must not be counted as they distort the apportionment of EC votes and house seats. Only legal voters must be counted to protect the democratic process

I agree, but what does the law say?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I agree, but what does the law say?

It cannot be changed by EO.

If we hold a Constitutional convention, I don't think either side is going to be too happy with the results.

 

[Hafar1014]

I agree, but what does the law say?

It says person with no context and it never assumed a massive invasion by illegals. The SC will hear it and they are conservatives so expect them to rule it means legal voter. The whole point is apportionment and voting

 

[Hafar1014]

Then change the Constitution to say that citizens only can be counted.

Dont have to we have SC and a bill in congress and executive orders and the GOP will be running the country in 2030 as democrats dont have candidate. Why would you even want the election to be distorted by illegals. What happened to democracy.

 

[80zephyr]

Then change the Constitution to say that citizens only can be counted.

Does the Constitution require them to be used for apportioning, or just for an accurate population count?

 

[Rogue AI]

Immigrants are PEOPLE, moron.

The US economy has always been dependent on a large pool of underpaid foreign workers/slaves, who can be exploited and then deported.

First the slaves, then Chinese “guest workers” who were not allowed to apply for citizenship, and then illegal immigrants.

Your economy collapsed when Trump closed the border during Covid, and it’s collapsing now under the weight of mass deportations and tariffs.

You’re the ones who are howling now.

Go away ignorant foreign interloper, you have nothing to offer to your betters.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We don't count tourists either.

 

[Rawley]

View attachment 1146271

You got a bad case of it, Directly related to your TDS

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, that does not follow. The 'whole number' is everyone. It does not say or indicate illegals are excluded from the census.

So Russians can vote in the next Presidential election?

 

[Meister]

Perhaps counting the illegals, but carving them out of counting them
towards the representative realignment. That may fly in the courts.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The bill will mean nothing.

The SC everything.

Meister's idea above has merit, I think.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Perhaps counting the illegals, but carving them out of counting them
towards the representative realignment. That may fly in the courts.

I would think not..given that the entire stated purpose of the census is for apportionment.
The whole number of persons.
The Constitution does NOT stipulate citizens only--in fact, it is clear, that they meant everyone who is subject to taxation--given that the only stated exception was predicated not on citizenship..but on taxpaying status~

BTW..as to Trump's idea of a mid-decade census..well, nothing says we can't be counted whenever the Govt. decides.
However, the only census that is eligible to be used to apportion is the decennial census.
That is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would think not..given that the entire stated purpose of the census is for apportionment.
The whole number of persons.
The Constitution does NOT stipulate citizens only--in fact, it is clear, that they meant everyone who is subject to taxation--given that the only stated exception was predicated not on citizenship..but on taxpaying status~

BTW..as to Trump's idea of a mid-decade census..well, nothing says we can't be counted whenever the Govt. decides.
However, the only census that is eligible to be used to apportion is the decennial census.
That is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

No, it is not stated that decennial is the only time it counts in the constitution.

 

[Meister]

I would think not..given that the entire stated purpose of the census is for apportionment.
The whole number of persons.
The Constitution does NOT stipulate citizens only--in fact, it is clear, that they meant everyone who is subject to taxation--given that the only stated exception was predicated not on citizenship..but on taxpaying status~

BTW..as to Trump's idea of a mid-decade census..well, nothing says we can't be counted whenever the Govt. decides.
However, the only census that is eligible to be used to apportion is the decennial census.
That is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

On the face of it, you are probably right, but one party has weaponized the immigration
system to skew the numbers. The census probably never thought to take that into consideration.
That's why I stipulated the carve out in just one area of the census.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, it is not stated that decennial is the only time it counts in the constitution.

The Constitution says every ten years.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

On the face of it, you are probably right, but one party has weaponized the immigration
system to skew the numbers. The census probably never thought to take that into consideration.
That's why I stipulated the carve out in just one area of the census.

Both parties have weaponized the immigration issue, and it began with the GOP long ago.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

No, it is not stated that decennial is the only time it counts in the constitution.

LOL! Yeah, the Govt, can count us whenever it please..but the ONLY time it matters as far as the apportionment of Representatives is the decennial census. Period.

Damn..don't you get tired of being wrong..so very often?
Perhaps,instead of just popping off with what you WANT to believe is true, you should actually do the work--and know what is possible vs what is not, under our Constitution?


The U.S. Constitution addresses apportionment in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (as modified by the 14th Amendment, Section 2). Here's the key original language (emphasis added):

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States... according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons...
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

​

• Apportionment (dividing House seats among the states) is based on each state's population.
• This population is determined by an "actual Enumeration."
• That enumeration is required to happen every 10 years.
• Congress has the authority to determine how the census is conducted, but the 10-year requirement is fixed by the Constitution.

While the Constitution does not explicitly forbid using other population data for apportionment, it specifically mandates that an "actual Enumeration" be conducted every 10 years, and this enumeration is what must be used for apportionment.

• In Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives (1999), the Court ruled that the Census Act prohibits the use of statistical sampling for apportionment purposes, reinforcing that only the actual enumeration (i.e., the decennial census) counts
• Yes, the Constitution requires a decennial census and ties congressional apportionment to it.
• No, it does not allow for other surveys or interim counts to be used for apportionment.
• This interpretation is supported by both the text and case law.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Both parties have weaponized the immigration issue, and it began with the GOP long ago.

Well...history would say that's not completely accurate.

Politicians of all parties have used the immigration issue of the time as a wedge issue.
An example of that would be the Irish question in the 19th and 20th century.
Democrats of the time, often Irish immigrants and the children of Irish immigrants, were behind the Nativist movements of the time.
Ironic, eh?

After the election of 1860 and the rise of the Republican party, the Republicans saw the waves of immigration as quite useful, as long as the immigrants knew their place and stayed in it.
The Union army was largely composed of Irish volunteers/draftees by the end of the war.

But yes, for sure, all sides weaponized immigration, sometimes pro...often con--but always a wedge issue with undertones of classism and racism~