Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The SC is accountable to the Constitution not public opinion.

Except for the three leftist kooks.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

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

That's exactly why blue sanctuary states want it.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

My desires are not relevant.

Reality says the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says apportionment based on the number of persons.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

WW

Why aren’t the Indians counted in the census.

 

[postman]

LOL....Where did you come-up with that BS?

They were consigned property and considered a movable asset.

The legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, was prevalent in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until 1865....

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not after 1808,

The Slave Trade

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates fiercely debated the issue of slavery. They ultimately agreed that the United States would potentially cease importation of slaves in 1808. An act of Congress passed in 1800 made it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade between...

www.archives.gov

An act of Congress passed in 1800 made it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade between nations, and gave U.S. authorities the right to seize slave ships which were caught transporting slaves and confiscate their cargo. Then the "Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" took effect in 1808.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

They don't control the Senate. They need 60 votes to control the Senate.

Thanks to obama, the filibuster is pretty much dead. Hilarious how everything the kenyan did backfired on him.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

If it goes thorough, fine.

If it doesn't, all the more reason to get rid of every illegal. We've got 5 years.

That's right. If trump kicks out all the illegal invaders, this issue will vanish.

 

[postman]

I didn’t ask for a history lesson. I asked if you think illegals should be counted for House representation. Do you have any individual opinion beyond “that’s just how it’s been done”?

They've been counted in the US since 1809
Our forefathers thought it proper, and constitutional.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Here you go since you refuse to read your own Constitution.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to 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. 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. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Why are Indian persons excluded?

 

[postman]

Again you have been caught lying. The very first words of the constitution are "We the people of the united states." So the word "people" means citizens.

If you want to make that declaration, it means the white males over 21 who own property.

 

[Meathead]

They've been counted in the US since 1809
Our forefathers thought it proper, and constitutional.

They also thought it proper and constitutional to count blacks at 3/5 of a person.

 

[Mashmont]

I don't have an issue with what Trump wants to do. I get that some might see it as controversial, but on the surface, it's just data. Are people worried about us knowing the truth?

Yes they are. Because that would further erode the Democrats fraudulent House seat total.

If you understand one universal fact in politics, that leftists lie and cheat, you will never go wrong. This goes back to the Bolsheviks. Their power relies on deception. They know they can never win on ideas. They even proudly write books on how to lie and cheat. “Rules for Radicals” tops the list.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Why are Indian persons excluded?

Indian territory was not considered US territory. Hence "untaxed." If they were in US territory they would be considered. Illegal immigrants are not "Indians."

 

[StatesRightsForever]

If you want to make that declaration, it means the white males over 21 who own property.

WTF??? No one knows what you're babbling about ? Get your butt outta your head.

 

[Orangecat]

They've been counted in the US since 1809
Our forefathers thought it proper, and constitutional.

Appeal to tradition or authority is not a valid logical argument. Try again.
Me: Why should people remain enslaved?
You: Because they’ve been slaves for a long time.

 

[postman]

Why are Indian persons excluded?

Change that to were.

And before 1924, they were technically foreigners, just like Canadians or Mexicans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Undocumented are not to be counted in the census

 

[TimFitz]

I don't have an issue with what Trump wants to do. I get that some might see it as controversial, but on the surface, it's just data. Are people worried about us knowing the truth?

The Census is delineated by the Constitution.

Trump is just playing to the Hispano hate racism of his base.

 

[Rawley]

Change that to were.

And before 1924, they were technically foreigners, just like Canadians or Mexicans.

Kudos Ratty.

 

[TimFitz]

No it isnt it determines which party has the power. The census determines how many seats are in the house by state population. Democrats have lost so many people from their states that they will lose seats in the next census. States like NY CA and NJ saw their populations move to states like TX and FL. Those seats go to those red states. They also gain EC votes. Democrats are looking at a serious loss of power.
Thats why they opened the border and made sanctuary cities to attract illegals to replace the loss of real citizens in their states.

Illegals should not be counted because they cant vote

This post is a perfect illustration of the flagrant racism of the Trump cult.

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

None of that silly blather addresses the strict adherence you desire in this case. By your own arguments that act is unconstitutional. Go fight that battle and prove you aren't a total hypocrite.

Non-citizens and even citizens were not counted all along for apportionment. You ignore the entire westward expansion from territories to states. The apportionment only applies to states, yet there millions of people in the territories. All accomplished by acts of Congress not amendments. History and precedent favor the Trump administration in every way. The liberal argument here is simplistic and juvenile.