Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[postman]

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.

Actually it is. Their behavior represents the interpretation of the constitution by the people who wrote it.

And they counted persons illegally in the country., Ever since there were persons illegally in the country.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The operative phrase here is 'those in the country illegally will not be counted in the census.' When the Constitution was ratified we did not have comprehensive immigration laws, but there is nothing that I see that prohibits Congress from disqualifying illegal migrants to be counted as 'free people.'

 

[Meathead]

Change that to were.

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

Illegals are still foreigners. Actually, even legals are too.

 

[postman]

The operative phrase here is 'those in the country illegally will not be counted in the census.' When the Constitution was ratified we did not have comprehensive immigration laws, but there is nothing that I see that prohibits Congress from disqualifying illegal migrants to be counted as 'free people.'

Except they counted the illegal migrants after 1809.

 

[Foxfyre]

Except they counted the illegal migrants after 1809.

But times change and the USA was not dealing with in invasion of tens of millions of migrants flooding the country and draining us of our resources.

I don't know how SCOTUS will rule on this and it almost certainly will wind up with SCOTUS to rule on it. But I sure hope they can find some way to make it illegal to increase your power in congress by importing as many illegals as you can.

 

[postman]

Show your evidence or move on.

As I said. Any slave entering the US after 1808 was illegally in the country.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Roe and Obergfell were based on bullshit, same as Plessey.

Prove I would be in favor of Plessey.

Don't have to. You have a Plessy mind and character.

 

[martybegan]

Don't have to. You have a Plessy mind and character.

Bullshit.

Plessy is up there with Scott, Roe, Chevron, New London and Obergfell as the worst SC decisions out there, and I have been on record saying that for years.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I said. Any slave entering the US after 1808 was illegally in the country.

I edited my post because they did count undocumented persons yes. Not necessarily illegal persons though.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

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

HAHAHAHA. This from the democrat loon who supports DEI and wants white people denied jobs just for being white!!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Really?
That's what you're going with?
People means citizens? In the Preamble?
Weak and painfully contrived..do better~

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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

So persons can be excluded?

 

[Mashmont]

The GOP has tried to do this before and failed, but now they control the house and senate and it should go thru. This is long long overdue.

BREAKING: Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

“People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS.”

thepostmillennial.com

I redo the 2020. census now. Don’t wait

 

[Zincwarrior]

Except they counted the illegal migrants after 1809.

A reminder, at the time (1790) only free white male immigrants could obtain citizen also.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

Bullshit.

Plessy is up there with Scott, Roe, Chevron, New London and Obergfell as the worst SC decisions out there, and I have been on record saying that for years.

You left out pleyer v doe. That is by far the worst decision the SC ever made. It made no legal sense and has cost america TRILLIONS of dollars.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why aren’t the Indians counted in the census.

Indians are counted in the Census. See the Citizenship Act of 1924.

WW

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Why aren’t the Indians counted in the census.

Yo..they are counted...as they are tax-paying Indians vs the non-taxpaying variety spelled out in the Constitution.
Do try to keep up~

 

[cnm]

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

I've expressed my opinion. You have not expressed yours as to mind reading a bunch of 18th century drunkards' desires.

Par for the course, no surprise at all.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So persons can be excluded?

If specifically named in the Constitution..sure~

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You left out pleyer v doe. That is by far the worst decision the SC ever made. It made no legal sense and has cost america TRILLIONS of dollars.

Dred Scot worst SC decision ever...very closely followed by Citizens United~