Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[postman]

I know you folks love to tax anything and everything, but really, taxing Indian child just so you can count them seems cruel and unusual. Or perhaps you need to look a little deeper and think this through.

the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

Does this help?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

That was a joke, yet you missed the point. No surprise. Exceptions existed, taxed Indians vs untaxed Indians, neither defined in the Constitution itself. How did untaxed Indians become taxed and counted Indians without an amendment? See where this is going yet? If not, don't bother continuing.

Untaxed Indian, as used used in the Constitution, was in and of itself a definition, yes?

But it seems pretty simple, an amendment was not needed to change their status from untaxed to taxed--and thus, be counted in the census.

Oh, I see where you're going, I just find it absurd.

 

[Orangecat]

Why would anyone want illegal immigrant numbers to count towards House seats?
Appeals to authority is a logical fallacy, btw.

 

[cnm]

Do you have some point that pertains to me?

I enjoy your outrage at the provisions of the US Constitution. Tell me, did you ever swear an oath to it?

 

[Orangecat]

Trump should sign an executive order designating all illegal immigrants, for census purposes, as “untaxed Indians”. Problem solved.

 

[cnm]

Why would anyone want illegal immigrant numbers to count towards House seats?

You'd have to ask the founders. They wanted a lot of stuff.

 

[Orangecat]

You'd have to ask the founders.

I’d rather watch you dodge the question.

 

[Rogue AI]

The Census Bureau collects data for the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population and publishes specific counts, estimates, and statistics. My Tribal Area gives you quick and easy access to selected statistics from the American Community Survey (ACS).

the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

Thanks for making my point. AN ACT OF CONGRESS. This is no different.

 

[Rogue AI]

I enjoy your outrage at the provisions of the US Constitution. Tell me, did you ever swear an oath to it?

Unlike you, I read the whole text, not just the parts I like. Get back to me when you've done that, or at least comprehend why that's important.

 

[Edgetho]

That was a joke, yet you missed the point. No surprise. Exceptions existed, taxed Indians vs untaxed Indians, neither defined in the Constitution itself. How did untaxed Indians become taxed and counted Indians without an amendment? See where this is going yet? If not, don't bother continuing.

Indians didn't want to be part of the US and we didn't care. And in those days, too many Indians were busy capturing and cooking White people over an open fire, then eating them in front of their friends and relatives. Oh, yes Virginia. They did. American Indians had institutionalized cannibalism whether the Lace Panty crowd wants to acknowledge it or not. So we really didn't give a shit about them other than keeping them out of our hair. Or killing them.

People forget, there was no such thing as an Illegal Immigrant back then. And Citizenship was mostly limited to White Males. In order to get an accurate count of the Population, they had to be nonspecific about who was counted.

If they had said 'Citizens only' all they would have gotten was Property Owning White Males. And that wouldn't have been a very accurate count, now would it?

Applying 21st Century morals to a document written in the 18th Century is a fool's errand.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Thanks for making my point. AN ACT OF CONGRESS. This is no different.

That was to declare them citizens..had jackshit to do with being counted for apportionment. Non-citizens have been counted all-along in the US.

Taxed vs non-taxed...taxed Indians were counted prior to 1924...in some states.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

All that means is that it comes down to who is interpreting the wording...in fact if it requires interpretation then it doesn't really say that...if a new interpretation goes into effect, then the old laws will be "inconsistent with existing legal interpretation" ...and there is nothing in the wording you cited that is now being applied to the "undocumented" that would differentiate between them and tourists, can you give me a reason why they too should not be counted under the existing 'reasoning' above?

 

[cnm]

I’d rather watch you dodge the question.

You want me to mind read a bunch of 18th century drunkards and so you frame a refusal to attempt a serious answer to an idiotic question as dodging?

Very Chumpy.

I notice you have dodged the question as well. Also very Chumpy.

 

[cnm]

Unlike you, I read the whole text, not just the parts I like. Get back to me when you've done that, or at least comprehend why that's important.

What a deflection. Have you had extra language model training?

 

[martybegan]

Class warfare.

Pointless response is pointless.

 

[postman]

Untaxed Indian, as used used in the Constitution, was in and of itself a definition, yes?

But it seems pretty simple, an amendment was not needed to change their status from untaxed to taxed--and thus, be counted in the census.

Oh, I see where you're going, I just find it absurd.

Native Americans and Taxes: How It Works

While Native Americans pay federal income taxes, there are exemptions for some forms of income. Tribes set their own sales taxes.

www.investopedia.com

In the eyes of the U.S. government, all members of tribes were recognized as citizens beginning in 1924 with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act. That law means Native Americans are expected to pay federal income tax.

There are exceptions, when that income is derived from Tribal land held in trust by the US Government.

 

[1srelluc]

Constitution says otherwise and doesn't care what you do. I know thats a mere hindrance for MAGA now.

No, it doesn't but that is fine, have your fantasy. SCOTUS will decide by and by.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No, it doesn't but that is fine, have your fantasy. SCOTUS will decide by and by.

I literally posted it. This will be blocked very quickly if tried.

 

[Godboy]

It's unconstitutional.

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.

 

[Orangecat]

You want me to mind read a bunch of 18th century drunkards and so you frame a refusal to attempt a serious answer to an idiotic question as dodging

No, I want you to think and express your own opinion, if you’re capable. It appears not, tbh.