Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

I would not have an issue with that--assuming the Supremes would sign off on it.

I suspect it would founder on the "every whole person" thing.
The purpose of the Decennial Census is Apportionment--the two cannot be divorced...IMO.

Then there is the matter of precedent--will the SCOTUS really upend 250 years of legal precedent?

 

[Edgetho]

THIS is highly relevant, and scum of the Earth dimocrap FILTH will howl like the end of the world is coming if and when it happens. All this other shit is a distraction --

The Voting Rights Act is Illegal Racial Gerrymandering | Frontpage Mag

And the Supreme Court may be about to end it.

www.frontpagemag.com

The battle between Texas and Democrat states over gerrymandering seems likely to touch on the biggest driver of Democrat gerrymandering which fundamentally altered the political balance of power in state after state. Louisiana v. Callais is likely headed for a big Supreme Court decision that will fundamentally change how the Voting Rights Act enforces minority districts.


There’s nothing to celebrate about the 60th anniversary of the VRA, a civil rights era relic which long ago stopped fighting segregation and instead enforced partisan gerrymandering with no end in sight. When the Supreme Court began allowing VRA ‘monitoring’ of elections in some states to sunset, Democrats cried that segregation and slavery were about to come back.But for all the talk of democracy and racism, Louisiana v. Callais shows what keeping the zombie VRA alive is really about. The case is about whether federal courts can force Louisiana to create two Democrat congressional seats under the guise of creating two black seats. It’s a common form of gerrymandering that uses race as a trojan horse for mandating Dem seats.

When heavily gerrymandered Democrat states like California, New York and Illinois eliminate Republican seats, that’s not seen as a Voting Rights Act violation even though much as Democrat seats are disproportionately minority, Republican seats are disproportionately white.

Democrats are not fighting to keep the VRA alive because they care about black people, but because they care about maintaining the racially gerrymandered seats produced by VRA abuses.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Correct...

Which the Congress did in the United State Code 13 USC 141.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution says every ten years.

Technically the Constitution says within 10 years, and that Congress gets to establish the time for Census as it pertains to apportionment in law.

Which they did in 13 USC 141.

WW

 

[Edgetho]

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~

Because the word 'Citizen' never entered the conversation. Mostly because, nobody even knew what one was in 1789.

Reason? Because only some White Males could vote. So, only some White Males were considered 'citizens'. But the goobermint wanted a full count of people that were here legally..... Women, non-property owners, Children as well as the voting White Males. We weren't counting Indians we were mostly at War with, or British and French Soldiers still lurking in the Western reserve, or Russians in the Northwest and Alaska or Canadians who owed their allegiance ot Britain hanging out in Michigan and Up State New Yawk.

I find it amusing when 2nd graders start talking about the effects of gravity on Faster Than Light Travel.

This thread reminds me of such. None of you have a clue. At all. I honestly do believe it is willful. I just don't see how adults can ignore the obvious time and again.

The Constituion doesn't mention the word 'Citizen' because they didn't even know what it was in those days. Not until a hundred years later did we even try to define what a citizens is, and they fucked that up.

It is a different world today. We know what a citizen is, and we know what an illegal immigrant is.

Our Founding Fathers did NOT intend to count persons here illegally in the Census. Period.

I believe SCOTUS will bear that out. If they get it wrong, then we are no longer a Country and something will have to break.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There was no "illegal" persons in 1789.

There were just people, all of them.

It can be redefined, of course, by SCOTUS or by amendment.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

You cannot change the constitution by executive order.

The supreme court has changed the constitution many times even though they are not allowed to do that.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

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

It already says that. The first 7 words of the constitution say "people" means citizens. THINK

 

[StatesRightsForever]

We don't count tourists either.

Yes indeed.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

I would not have an issue with that--assuming the Supremes would sign off on it.

Why do you insist the unelected judges on the SC should have final say on every issue when the constitution says they DON'T have such power.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The supreme court has changed the constitution many times even though they are not allowed to do that.

A 'whataboutism' that makes no sense at all. SCOTUS abrogated power in 1808. Congress could have withdrawn its jurisdiction in Marshall but did not.

 

[Doc7505]

Because the word 'Citizen' never entered the conversation. Mostly because, nobody even knew what one was in 1789.

Reason? Because only some White Males could vote. So, only some White Males were considered 'citizens'. But the goobermint wanted a full count of people that were here legally..... Women, non-property owners, Children as well as the voting White Males. We weren't counting Indians we were mostly at War with, or British and French Soldiers still lurking in the Western reserve, or Russians in the Northwest and Alaska or Canadians who owed their allegiance ot Britain hanging out in Michigan and Up State New Yawk.

I find it amusing when 2nd graders start talking about the effects of gravity on Faster Than Light Travel.

This thread reminds me of such. None of you have a clue. At all. I honestly do believe it is willful. I just don't see how adults can ignore the obvious time and again.

The Constituion doesn't mention the word 'Citizen' because they didn't even know what it was in those days. Not until a hundred years later did we even try to define what a citizens is, and they fucked that up.

It is a different world today. We know what a citizen is, and we know what an illegal immigrant is.

Our Founding Fathers did NOT intend to count persons here illegally in the Census. Period.

I believe SCOTUS will bear that out. If they get it wrong, then we are no longer a Country and something will have to break.

~~~~~~
In many instances some Americans even in 1789 still considered themselves subjects of the Crown of England.
In fact, wasn't 1789 the start of the French Revolution?
The concept of citizenship became significantly important in America with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which established birthright citizenship and aimed to ensure equal rights for all individuals born or naturalized in the United States. This amendment was a response to the injustices highlighted by the Dred Scott decision and has shaped the understanding of citizenship in the U.S. ever since.
Read more:

A Historical Overview of U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Laws

Immigration laws in the U.S., both past and present, are subject to certain political, social, and economic changes which have shaped modern precedent.

tingen.law

xxxxxxxxxx​

https://academic.oup.com/book/27698/chapter/197848080

xxxxxxxxxx​

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42844105

xxxxxxxxxx​

The Forgotten Meaning of the Citizenship Clause – Amy Swearer

Universal birthright citizenship was never the original intent.

lawliberty.org

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It already says that. The first 7 words of the constitution say "people" means citizens. THINK

It means living human beings. It does not automatically 'citizens.'

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why do you insist the unelected judges on the SC should have final say on every issue when the constitution says they DON'T have such power.

Because they are the judges of the Constitution. Duh.

 

[Edgetho]

~~~~~~
In many instances some Americans even in 1789 still considered themselves subjects of the Crown of England.
In fact wasn't 1789 the start of the French Revolution?
The concept of citizenship became significantly important in America with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which established birthright citizenship and aimed to ensure equal rights for all individuals born or naturalized in the United States. This amendment was a response to the injustices highlighted by the Dred Scott decision and has shaped the understanding of citizenship in the U.S. ever since.
Read more:

A Historical Overview of U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Laws

Immigration laws in the U.S., both past and present, are subject to certain political, social, and economic changes which have shaped modern precedent.

tingen.law

xxxxxxxxxx​

https://academic.oup.com/book/27698/chapter/197848080

xxxxxxxxxx​

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42844105

During Robespierre's Reign of Terror, people were beheaded for addressing each other as Madame or Monsieur rather than the preferred 'Citizen Gilbert' or Citizen Jock or Citizen Fluffy.

Public school morons trying to apply 21st Century morals to 18th Century deeds and actions are hopelessly stupid. Every one of which is a dimocrap. And every one of them is a scumbag. And stupid.

The Founding Fathers never intended to count Illegal Aliens. SCOTUS needs to, and I think WILL, address that in Callais

 

[Rawley]

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.

But you're OK using the inflated figures for the apportionment of Federal funds?

 

[Doc7505]

It means living human beings. It does not automatically 'citizens.'

~~~~~~
The original U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define citizenship; it primarily addresses the rights and responsibilities of citizens without detailing who qualifies as a citizen. The concept of citizenship was later clarified and established by the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.
The Constitution mentions "citizens" in various contexts but does not provide a clear rule for determining who qualifies as a citizen.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

During Robespierre's Reign of Terror, people were beheaded for addressing each other as Madame or Monsieur rather than the preferred 'Citizen Gilbert' or Citizen Jock or Citizen Fluffy.

Public school morons trying to apply 21st Century morals to 18th Century deeds and actions are hopelessly stupid. Every one of which is a dimocrap. And every one of them is a scumbag. And stupid.

The Founding Fathers never intended to count Illegal Aliens. SCOTUS needs to, and I think WILL, address that in Callais

They did not think about it because it was not a thing. It is today. SCOTUS must attend to this.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

~~~~~~
The original U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define citizenship; it primarily addresses the rights and responsibilities of citizens without detailing who qualifies as a citizen. The concept of citizenship was later clarified and established by the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.
The Constitution mentions "citizens" in various contexts but does not provide a clear rule for determining who qualifies as a citizen.

Thank you. Clear and concise. The SCOTUS needs to address the issue. Congress has no jurisdiction on this issue.

 

[Doc7505]

The supreme court has changed the constitution many times even though they are not allowed to do that.

~~~~~~
Indeed, They're called "Amendments" and can only be achieved by a three-fourths ratification vote of the States.