Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

[Faun]

ROFLMOA, Libtard heads exploding across the GLOBE! I CAN HEAR THEM NOW!

Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump.

www.breitbart.com

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump on Tuesday.​

​

Congressional seats and electoral college votes are currently divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California, New York, and Florida to receive more congressional seats and electoral college votes, while diluting political power in states with small illegal alien populations.​

Yup, that'll be shot down for being unconstitutional. The only people who are not counted are Indians who are not taxed...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.​

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” - Ronald Reagan

It's fun to watch these leftist demagogues embarrass themselves. How could you possibly know that in 1924 Congress adopted the Indian Citizenship Act, which extended US citizenship to the members of all recognized Native American tribes, and made all such persons fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

LOL

Seriously? You still don't understand the words, "counting the whole number of persons?"

"Persons" are people, regardless of their citizenship.

 

[Faun]

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

Quote that from the Constitution...

I did, earlier...

How about you read my post #146, and note, whatever I said to busybee01 is valid for you too.

LOLOL

You mean your post you plagiarized from quora.com??

Would you be willing to repeal the second amendment if the fourteen amendment is also removed?

Answer (1 of 16): You are correct to link the 2nd and 14th Amendments, but not in the way you hope. The same Congress established (March 1865) the Freedmen’s Bureau, over-rode (April 1866) President Johnson’s veto to pass the Civil Rights Act, sent (June 1866) the 14th Amendment to the States fo...

www.quora.com

Regardless of your ignorance, the census includes all people, citizens and non-citizens...

Who are counted among the foreign-born population?

The foreign-born population is composed of anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth. This includes naturalized U.S. citizens, non-citizen U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents (immigrants), temporary migrants (such as foreign students), humanitarian migrants (such as refugees and asylees), and unauthorized migrants.

FAQ

Browse and explore FAQs on census.gov by topic or group. Click on Submit Request to reach our support team. We will find the answer for you soon. Thank you.

www.census.gov

 

[Faun]

@busybee01 and @Faun

Since your government controlled education did not provide you with tools that could encourage your thinking any other way then they got for you, here are couple more thoughts just for you. My post from last night I finished with:

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed.

Let's elaborate this, and at the same time answer Faun's demand from post #150.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

"... and of the State wherein they reside..."

This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them. Got it? No, you don't, morons.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, this portion forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.

14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned federal citizen. Left insists that it includes illegal aliens, since they're "persons", but according to constitution, along with explanation of proper English use of words, illegal aliens are not federal citizens, and they cannot be apportioned. Got it yet? Of course you don't morons, so let's continue.

14th Amendment, Section 2: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former "We the People".

You have enough to chew on this for awhile, I'll be back later with more goodies for you. Morons.

LOL

That's just mote plagiarism from quora.com. word-for-word, copy & paste. How the fuck are you going to defend your position when you needed to post someone else's position, without giving them credit, because you can't think for yourself?

Would you be willing to repeal the second amendment if the fourteen amendment is also removed?

Answer (1 of 16): You are correct to link the 2nd and 14th Amendments, but not in the way you hope. The same Congress established (March 1865) the Freedmen’s Bureau, over-rode (April 1866) President Johnson’s veto to pass the Civil Rights Act, sent (June 1866) the 14th Amendment to the States fo...

www.quora.com

Again, your ignorance is noted and easily squashed. And by Impeached Trump, no less.

His EO seeks to not count illegal aliens but to continue counting legal aliens. Legal aliens are not U.S. citizens but will be counted towards apportionment.

So right there is the proof that "persons" as employed in the 14th Amendment applies to ALL people in the U.S., excluding Indians not taxed. It does not mean only "persons who are U.S. citizens."

Are you ever not an abject imbecile?

Ever???

 

[Faun]

@busybee01

Since you've been avoiding to answer my question, or more likely, you've been intellectually incapable to answer, let me clarify couple of things for you, and others who are reading our conversation. Although I am very skeptical that you could understand the subject, I'd like to give you an idea what it meant with "proper English word usage" in the post above.

Again, I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak "lawyer", but I do have couple of friends that are, with whom on occasion I have privilege to have a conversation about topics they're much more knowledgeable than I am. I have tried to have discussion with you, but I can tell you, I had better conversations with my pet rock than I have with you.

I'll start with Preamble to the Bill of Rights

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." You can read the rest in the link above.

The Bill of Rights (BoR) created no Rights. It simply stated Rights held by "We the People".

Some people praise the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States as if the States were lawless kingdoms where anarchy ruled. These people, generally, do not know about the original States and how territories became States. They think States created themselves with no input from common people. Most only vaguely conceive that their State even has a constitution. Most that do have never read their State's original constitution.

The facts are that the State's constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one, in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.

You probably noticed bold letters when I mention "several States", and here is why. Most Americans applaud the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States but never consider why. When you see “United States” in a sentence, or in the Constitution, or in law, you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.


The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated:

"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

So the term “United States” may be (among others):
1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.
2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions and territories of the federal government
3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the, currently, 50 separate States in law.

The first definition is easily understood, the second and third are not. Let’s look at the third definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another. This brings me back to the questions I asked you several times earlier, that you could not answer. To answer, you first need a knowledge of history, then knowledge of the Constitution, and also the knowledge of proper English use of words. You have none of these, and you think that googleing something will provide you with critical thinking. Hint: It wont.

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. In English language, and in US law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. Since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude. So, the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the several States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction... AND... Implicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.

This is exactly where anti-constitutionals leftists are failing to recognize the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing to remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not. This brings me back to the beginning of this thread and meaning of the 14th Amendment and the second definition of "United States" and brought up above. The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, balked at the intent of the proposed 14th Amendment. Only Citizens of the several States, known as "We the People", could vote for President and had representation in Congress. This amendment's purpose was to create a new class of citizen, one not of the several States but a subject of the federal government. All federal territories and possessions were, and are, under the exclusive control of Congress through Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.

Damn, I did not realize that is this late, and since I have to get up early, I'll have to wrap it up quickly. So... In retaliation for their refusal to cede to the federal government a Right that was always held exclusively by the several States, the Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen and then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States (except Tennessee who voted for the 14th), the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. You think that's constitutional?

Since the 14th Amendment was, in my opinion, unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the war between the States to write it? To understand that, you must do unthinkable and step outside your government-controlled education and leftist mindset. Despite the teaching that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that "all political authority" was held by "We the People", quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Some wanted a monarchy, some a pure democracy, others an oligarchy, with them and their heirs as leaders. They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. Industrial innovation would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.

So, to finish, let's look at the 14th Amendment.

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government. Note the "subject to THE jurisdiction". It denotes the federal government; if it meant the several States, it would have stated "subject to their jurisdiction" as in the 13th Amendment or "subject to the jurisdictions". That is why the Southern States objected to it. Those majority Northern Congressmen wanted power and did not hold to the idea of a free people not under their domination. They knew exactly what they wrote and used it to eventually destroy the American Republic and "We the People".

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed. I'll leave it here for now, you have more than enough to read, although I doubt you have enough gray matter to process it, in other words, you're moron. Good night.

You are the KING of bullshit artists. The first part of the 14th Amendment clearly defines who a citizen is. However section 2 states that all persons shall be counted for purposes of apportionment of Congressional seats. It then uses the word citizens when it talks about voting. Clearly they meant to differentiate between people who can vote and people who should be counted. Words mean things and you are trying to get them to mean something else by obfuscating.

Is that all you figured out from my post? If so, you are king of morons.

How about you answer the questions I asked you twice already? It's not that you have no time, since you already replied to this post, and you can't clam that unlike me, you do have a life, since you're here much more than I am. Answers please!

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you was, and still is: "Whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?"

You are the King of the MORONS. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it. The 14th Amendment plainly states that a count of all persons shall be used for reapportionment of House seats. It uses the word citizens when it talks about voting. If only citizens were to be used in apportioning House seats they would have said citizens.

That idiot plagiarized all of that so he doesn't understand it. That's why he can't comprehend the concept of concurrent jurisdiction and how it obliterates that entire diatribe, regardless of who wrote it.

 

[Faun]

@busybee01 and @Faun

Since your government controlled education did not provide you with tools that could encourage your thinking any other way then they got for you, here are couple more thoughts just for you. My post from last night I finished with:

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed.

Let's elaborate this, and at the same time answer Faun's demand from post #150.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

"... and of the State wherein they reside..."

This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them. Got it? No, you don't, morons.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, this portion forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.

14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned federal citizen. Left insists that it includes illegal aliens, since they're "persons", but according to constitution, along with explanation of proper English use of words, illegal aliens are not federal citizens, and they cannot be apportioned. Got it yet? Of course you don't morons, so let's continue.

14th Amendment, Section 2: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former "We the People".

You have enough to chew on this for awhile, I'll be back later with more goodies for you. Morons.

Informative and thoughtful.

Yeah, but not Ame®icano's thoughts. Ame®icano's not capable of such thought. Those are the thoughts of someone else, whom he did not credit, from another website.

 

[RealDave]

ROFLMOA, Libtard heads exploding across the GLOBE! I CAN HEAR THEM NOW!

Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump.

www.breitbart.com

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump on Tuesday.​

​

Congressional seats and electoral college votes are currently divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California, New York, and Florida to receive more congressional seats and electoral college votes, while diluting political power in states with small illegal alien populations.​

If they do not have the citizenship question on the Census, how the fuck would you assholes know how many were illegal?

Trump pissing on the Constitution once again & his ignorant, uneducated base cheers.

 

[Ame®icano]

You are the King of the MORONS. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it. The 14th Amendment plainly states that a count of all persons shall be used for reapportionment of House seats. It uses the word citizens when it talks about voting. If only citizens were to be used in apportioning House seats they would have said citizens.

"king of morons"

Hmmm, did you come up with THAT on your own, or... Nah, you're not that smart. Just few posts above, I said this to you:

Is that all you figured out from my post? If so, you are king of morons.

And look, you're trying to use the same words against me? Dude, if that is all you got, you must be the special one.

Second, "jurisdiction" has everything to do with it. But to understand it, you must first know what jurisdiction actually is. No, the government controlled schools couldn't possibly teach you about that. Although I already explained it to you, it's clear that you can't see forest for the threes. What else is clear is who the persons who are counted for the apportionment of the Congress. For the morons such as you are, who can't understand proper English, California went even further and in their Code stated that a "person" was either a Citizen of California, one of the other several States OR, and if neither one than you were an alien. 14th Amendment citizens of the United States are deemed to be citizens of the District of Columbia, that being the Seat of the federal government, residing in one of the several States. DC is not one of the several States, hence its citizens could be denied voting in a State without the 15th. Thus, the 15th Amendment further obscured the federal takeover of the Republic by supposedly preventing the several States from denying freed slaves from voting but, actually, preventing the several States from denying any federal citizen from voting in State elections.

America is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic but that term no longer is true. The term is part of phrases that, while at one time were correct, are now just false assumptions. Among the false assumptions are: Innocent until proven guilty, Right to marry, Right to travel, part of liberty per SCOTUS, Right to property, included in "pursuit of happiness", per SCOTUS. There are more but this will suffice for now. The Constitutional Republic died a quiet death in the 1930's following a mortal wound inflicted in the 1860's. In it's place, a social democracy was instituted. The presiding rulers lord over the domain from Washington DC with lesser nobles at state and local levels. Their subjects, all current Americans, are given the impression of being able to elect people who represent themselves but are simply choosing from a cast of pre-selected clones. This "social democracy" known as the federal government, currently consists of 50 federal states, legal fictions actually, created by the Buck Act. These can be recognized by their two-uppercase-case letter abbreviations: CA; NJ; AZ; etc. The former Republic's States had abbreviations such as: Ca. or Calif.; N.J.; Az. or Ariz.; etc.

The insidious destruction of the Republic occurred during times of war and strife. The former free Citizens, being more concerned about security and well-being were seemingly unaware of the catastrophic consequences of their inattentiveness and trust in corrupt politicians. As meer subjects, Americans must pay their overseers for most of the things "We the People" did freely by Right. They can now have their property taken and given to anyone else by their overseers. They must pay yearly tribute to use their own vehicles on the, supposedly, public roads in the form of registrations. They must pay for the privilege of getting married. And you support that, to just take by force of the government from "haves" and give to "have nots".

You and like you are social feces, and the only solution for you, and like you are to be flushed down the toilet, into sewer, for sole reason, that sewer is what you are planning for all of us, had it goes your way. Well, that is your place, you belong there, I do not, and I refuse to be dragged down with you.

 

[Ame®icano]

@busybee01 and @Faun

Since your government controlled education did not provide you with tools that could encourage your thinking any other way then they got for you, here are couple more thoughts just for you. My post from last night I finished with:

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed.

Let's elaborate this, and at the same time answer Faun's demand from post #150.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

"... and of the State wherein they reside..."

This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them. Got it? No, you don't, morons.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, this portion forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.

14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned federal citizen. Left insists that it includes illegal aliens, since they're "persons", but according to constitution, along with explanation of proper English use of words, illegal aliens are not federal citizens, and they cannot be apportioned. Got it yet? Of course you don't morons, so let's continue.

14th Amendment, Section 2: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former "We the People".

You have enough to chew on this for awhile, I'll be back later with more goodies for you. Morons.

Maybe you need to get a education so you can read.

14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

The "several states" clearly refers to the states that make up the US. It then says "to counting thde whole number of persons in each state" which means count everyone except Indians.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

This simply defines who can vote. It also states that you can exclude prisoners from the count.

You need to chew on your ignorance. MORON.

You can't take one sentence from the Amendment to make it mean what you want it to mean. If that is whole meaning of the amendment, than there is no need for the rest.

"several States" AND "their jurisdiction", meaning, jurisdiction of the States, not of the federal government, moron. States can count whoever they want for their own internal affairs, but not for the apportionment of the congressional seats in federal government.

"Unites States" AND "jurisdiction thereof", meaning, jurisdiction of the federal government, not of the single or several States, moron. Citizens that are prisoners, although they cannot vote, they're still citizens, and as citizens, they're counted for congressional apportionment. Illegal aliens are not citizens, nor legally in the country, therefore, they have no representation.

 

[basquebromance]

Dump Trump! Ditch Mitch! Disbarr Barr!

 

[Ame®icano]

Dump Trump! Ditch Mitch! Disbarr Barr!

You forgot "Socialism works!"