Why counting illegal aliens in the Census is wrong explained calmly and clearly in a video

[WorldWatcher]

It says person not illegal person

Person includes the subsets Citizen Persons, Legal Persons Not Citizens, and Illegal Persons Not Citizens.

Want to make the count for apportionment Citizen Persons only, change the Constitution.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Census has its purposes. But giving more House Representatives to States which encourage illegal immigration to artificially swell their “population” does not appear to have been even considered.

Therefore, why would it be wrong to returning to a period where all people were counted for some purposes but only counting citizens would be the method of apportioning Representation in the House and, thus, also the total EC vote?

Because it's unconstitutional.

Again you use "wrong" as an emotional trigger. I don't think it's "wrong", actually I agree with the concept (for apportionment purposes). But our personal view of "what should be" and "what is" are not reality no matter how much we would like them to be.

If the will of the people is to count only citizens for apportionment, that's fine. Change the Constitution and don't try to "interpret it away" like liberals do.

WW

 

[Harry Dresden]

The video was lame, Basically, California has a bunch of illegals and thereby they get more Congressional representatives and more electoral college votes. Well, Texas and Florida both have a bunch of illegal immigrants too. Texas, 1.6 million illegal immigrants, 6% of the population. Which is possibly a higher percentage than California. Nevada is looking at an illegal immigration population that is over 7% of their total population.

But you are looking for reasons. First, the US Census has always counted everyone, since the very first one in 1790. Sure, I know, the whole 3/5th compromise thing. But those slaves were counted. Women were counted and yet they could not vote. Children are counted, they cannot vote.

But second, believe it or not, a representative's job is to represent all the people in the district. Not just the citizens, not just the people that voted for him. And surprisingly enough, not just the people that stroked his or her's campaign a big ass check. Although it sure looks like that most of the time, on both sides of the aisle.

And a note here, no Senators are not suppose to represent the interest of their respective state. They are supposed to be the learned, the wise, and should be chosen on their ability to look at the big picture, not be front side focused on their state. Hell, it was why the founders set it up so that they were appointed, not elected. But like many things, that kind of went off the rails within the first one hundred years.

But perhaps most important of all, there is this thing called the Constitution, and it has amendments, like the 14th.

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.

Are illegal immigrants not whole? Are they not persons? Are they not taxed? I mean what is your argument here?

its about the same....when i was living there there were, depending on who was doing the counting, anywhere from 2.5 million to 4 million...right now they are saying about 2.6.....i think its higher....

 

[Harry Dresden]

So, the founders, in the Constitution, said only citizens should be counted? Uh NO.

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.

Rather one was a citizen or not was not even a question of the first Census. The total number of people enumerated was just shy of four million. Without a doubt, hundreds of thousands of them were not citizens, were foreign born, and had not been naturalized. Probably, more than half were female. The majority of those counted did not own property. And then there is that damn pesky 14th amendment.

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 Constitution, including the amendments, is the supreme law of the land. You don't get to violate it to get what you want. Every member of Congress, of the Senate, the President, and the Vice-president, swear an oath, to DEFEND the Constitution, not ignore it when it suits their purposes.

maybe at that time they felt that if you are living there you must be a citizen so need to specify.....did they have a lot of non citizens living there at the time?...

 

[BackAgain]

The video was lame, Basically, California has a bunch of illegals and thereby they get more Congressional representatives and more electoral college votes. Well, Texas and Florida both have a bunch of illegal immigrants too. Texas, 1.6 million illegal immigrants, 6% of the population. Which is possibly a higher percentage than California. Nevada is looking at an illegal immigration population that is over 7% of their total population.

But you are looking for reasons. First, the US Census has always counted everyone, since the very first one in 1790. Sure, I know, the whole 3/5th compromise thing. But those slaves were counted. Women were counted and yet they could not vote. Children are counted, they cannot vote.

But second, believe it or not, a representative's job is to represent all the people in the district. Not just the citizens, not just the people that voted for him. And surprisingly enough, not just the people that stroked his or her's campaign a big ass check. Although it sure looks like that most of the time, on both sides of the aisle.

And a note here, no Senators are not suppose to represent the interest of their respective state. They are supposed to be the learned, the wise, and should be chosen on their ability to look at the big picture, not be front side focused on their state. Hell, it was why the founders set it up so that they were appointed, not elected. But like many things, that kind of went off the rails within the first one hundred years.

But perhaps most important of all, there is this thing called the Constitution, and it has amendments, like the 14th.

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.

Are illegal immigrants not whole? Are they not persons? Are they not taxed? I mean what is your argument here?

I am not asking for any “AI” answers.

“We the People” are the citizens of the United States. This is why only US citizens are allowed to vote in our elections. But by counting (with questionable accuracy) everyone residing in a State as a “person,” the result is to effectively grant illegal aliens (as well as temporary tourists and legal aliens) undue influence over the Representation in OUR House of Representative and, thus, even in our Electoral College.

I can understand how some Democrat Party majority States (like California) might wish to continue proceeding along those lines. But it obviously doesn’t make sense.

And, to the extent that the SCOTUS has, even in the recent past, allowed this status quo to continue, the legal question needs to be revisited.

Of course, the SCOTUS decision in 2020 (see below) doesn’t directly say that the Census cannot be fashioned by including only citizens. Instead, it seems to have merely concluded that the issue was not (yet) fully justifiable.

By the way, “the whole number of persons” could easily be interpreted as encompassing only those “persons” who are citizens of the United States, as in “we the People.”

The SCOTUS decision, which is referenced above, can be read here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf

 

[Hafar1014]

Person includes the subsets Citizen Persons, Legal Persons Not Citizens, and Illegal Persons Not Citizens.

Want to make the count for apportionment Citizen Persons only, change the Constitution.

WW

Says who you. The SC will have the last word and expect them to deny illegal invaders to be counted in the census assuming any are left by 2030. The constitution does not have to be changed.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not disagreeing with considering it.

I'm saying that after such consideration that the Constitution should and can be amended to reflect the change.

Unless of course some people consider the Constitution to be a living, breathing document that can be ignored when they don't like something. Which is a pretty liberal viewpoint.

WW

And I’m countering and contending that this requires no Amendment. Congress can do it (perhaps requiring a methodology which is reliable in distinguishing between citizens and aliens).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf

 

[Winston]

Interpretation of The Constitution requires an understanding of the INTENT of the Framers.

Since there was no problem with Illegal Aliens back then, there can be no intent to interpret.

dimocrap FILTH are just using an oversight by the Framers to their own devious amd Anti-American Advantage.

There was/is nothing in the COTUS about The People having Automatic Weapons or .50 Cal Machine Guns. Or M1 Tanks, or Napalm. Or any number of other rights not delineated or restricted.

So SCOTUS had to determine "Intent''. And mix that with reality.

Since dimocraps are the scum of the Earth, every last one of them, they use oversights when they're to their advantage without regard to what's best for America and Americans.

When SCOTUS invents and manufactures a 'Right' out of thin air -- Privacy -- dimocrap FILTH applaud because it suits their agenda. And because they are scum.

When SCOTUS is too cowardly to act on a problem that simply didn't exist in 1789, dimocrap FILTH take advantage and lie. Without regard to what's best for America and Americans and the realities of Modern Life. They do this because --

dimocraps are scum

What ******* total bullshit. I love when morons that haven't read a single day of transcription concerning the Constitutional Convention throw out the "Intent" horseshit. I mean the Constitutional Convention opened on May 25, 1787. They all agreed, well kind of, that the proceedings should be held in secret. James Madison ignored that shit, carefully transcribed every word of the debates.

The debates went on for months, and the biggest sticking point, precisely what we are discussing now. I mean these were great men, I don't understand why others are not enthralled with their speeches as I am. I mean members walked out of the debate, many times, it looked like things would fall apart over just how the number of representatives were chosen and even how they were to be elected.

Like the 3\5 compromise. Proposed by the Connecticut delegation, along with a bi-cameral Congress, and yes, the counting of all people within a district. What is funny, is the reaction of those from states like Massachusetts concerning the 3\5 provision. They stood up and said slaves were property, if they were to be counted, then so should cows and sheep. Virginia wanted votes to be counted on wealth. The more property you owned, the more power of your vote.

But here is what was not discussed, not ever discussed, rather only Citizens should be counted. That was never a question. Like I said, many wanted cows and sheep to be counted. So you take that and shove it up your "intent" bullshit.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The whole point of the census is apportionment that determines seats in the house and EC votes in each state. Therefore only legal voters should be counted.

At the time of the Constitution, that was only white male property owners. Even now it would not include children and other citizens not registered to vote. The Census is also used to apportion numbers for payments etc.

The Constitution however, is explicit on the subject.

 

[Winston]

It says person not illegal person

Wow, did you really just write that? Yes, it says person, not legal person.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Wow, did you really just write that? Yes, it says person, not legal person.

An illegal is not a legal person. Duh

 

[BackAgain]

The Constitution considered and allowed the counting of slaves, didn’t make it right

They knew the meaning of words and used the term persons instead of citizens

Wrong. It considered a ******* compromise whereby slaves were counted as only 3/5ths of a person for purposes of enumeration. This was to prevent slaves (who had no vote at all) from being fully used by the slave states for purposes of representation. The reason for that was to leave open a then future prospect for addressing slavery as a major issue in our land.

And they recognized that counting a slave as a fraction of a “person” was a contradiction since a slave was, for all other purposes, not considered a “person” at all.

Such was the nature of “compromise.” It wasn’t the compromise which was so nefarious. It was slavery at all that was nefarious. But the unpalatable compromise was achieved to be at least able to reach an agreement on the Constitution in the first place.

 

[Hafar1014]

Wow, did you really just write that? Yes, it says person, not legal person.

Illegal invaders are not persons in America they are felons and expect the SC to rue that they will not be in the census assuming any are still here in 5 years.

 

[MisterBeale]

#1 Non-naturalized != Illegal.

#2 Move the goal posts much.

Why would you assume that I think that states and municipalities get to "protect" non-naturalized citizens?

Are non-naturalized persons (legal or illegal) are still subject to the law and it's protections. Meaning equal treatment and due process guaranteed by the Constitution to all persons.

If said persons are here illegally, then deport them. If they are working illegally, arrest the employer.

WW

No goal post moving, just pointing out that you only want the Constitution enforced when it suits your agenda.

Your distorted thinking is revealed by using the nonsense term, "non-naturalized citizens." The only thing they are citizens of are other nations.

Thus, Article 4 Section 4 gives the federal government the responsibility of protecting the state against these folks.

 

[BackAgain]

Because it's unconstitutional.

Again you use "wrong" as an emotional trigger. I don't think it's "wrong", actually I agree with the concept (for apportionment purposes). But our personal view of "what should be" and "what is" are not reality no matter how much we would like them to be.

If the will of the people is to count only citizens for apportionment, that's fine. Change the Constitution and don't try to "interpret it away" like liberals do.

WW

No.

This is not an “emotional” use of the word whatsoever. And your reply that it’s “because” it is “unconstitutional “ is unsupported. It requires that you ignore all the comments which demonstrate that it is Constitutional.

If you would read (rather closely) the SCOTUS decision in the 2020 Trump case, you might recognize that the Constitution allows CONGRESS to direct how a Census shall be conducted. Accordingly, among other reasons, this issue could be resolved by a Congressional Act rather than an Amendment.

 

[Edgetho]

I'd like to agree with what you post, you make some good points, but black and white thinking is fallacious.

Splitting (psychology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tulsi and RFKjr. were democrats, and you felt the same when they were.

My thinking is not Black and White on this at all. It is the thinking of dimocrap scum that is in this case because it suits their agenda.

Illegal Aliens were not an item in 1789. We didn't really have borders back then like we do today. One of our Founding Documents is the Northwest Ordinance Document. Connecticut laid claim to Ohio (not a State at the time) and its cessation to the USA in 1786 was a Founding Document.

The People living there, which was quite a few, didn't live inside the 13 Colonies but they were still considered Americans because so many of them fought in our Revolution. Without them, we would have lost to the British soundly.

dimocrap scum are simply playing word games and SCOTUS needs to sack-up and do their ******* jobs.

Illegal Aliens only became a problem recently. And the only reason they became a problem is because of dimocrap scum. The scummiest motherfuckers to ever exist on the Planet.

The Judiciary by its very nature is cowardly but when they abrogate their duties, things can get out of control and this is a perfect example. SCOTUS needs to act. We're either a Country or we are not.

And today, Countries have borders.

 

[Winston]

maybe at that time they felt that if you are living there you must be a citizen so need to specify.....did they have a lot of non citizens living there at the time?...

Hell yeah they did. I mean damn, you know nothing about Colonial America or the early times after the Revolution. Hell, we didn't even have a naturalization process until 1790. And do you really think some Scot living in the Highlands of Appalachia was going to go to a courthouse, prove he had been here for two years, prove he had good moral character, and swear an oath at the local courthouse. LMAO.

Again, 1790, just shy of four million residents, over 700,000 slaves. Washington went off, said the number was way under the real number. And it probably was. I mean lets just throw it out there, what percentage of the population actually gave two shits about the American Revolution?

 

[Winston]

An illegal is not a legal person. Duh

Where in the **** does either the Constitution or the 14th amendment say a damn thing about "legal person".

 

[WorldWatcher]

And I’m countering and contending that this requires no Amendment. Congress can do it (perhaps requiring a methodology which is reliable in distinguishing between citizens and aliens).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf

Changing the methodology to ask the question is one thing.

Changing the methodology to exclude persons is another.

IMHO the Census can ask the question, it cannot exclude for apportionment without and Amendment.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Says who you. The SC will have the last word and expect them to deny illegal invaders to be counted in the census assuming any are left by 2030. The constitution does not have to be changed.

: SHRUG :

The Constitution says what it says. But I can understand how a liberal would want it to mean what they want, not what it actually says.

WW