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

[Paleman]

Why do you people hate the Constitution and what it says?

When the Constitution was approved, this country did not have or even imagine what a disaster you Liberals would create with open borders. Because of the damage caused, it is absolutely imperative that changes are made to deal with all the invaders DEMONRATS have invited into the US. I fully approve a change to the Constitution or at least a WORK AROUND!

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

I didn't say "non-nauralized citizens", I said "non-naturalized persons".

The same phrase you used to which I was responding.

WW
.
.
.

 

[Winston]

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

I use AI as a foundation for research. I have Madison's transcriptions of the debates open in a tab, and I read your SCOTUS decision which pretty much said, we don't want to touch this issue with a hot poker. Dissent was pretty telling. I mean nothing is perhaps more telling than the fact that not a single delegate, that opposed the 3/5th compromise, said a damn thing about citizenship. Nope, they argued that if we are going to count slaves, which were property, we should count cows and sheep.

Again, it is not just California, but Texas, Florida, and Nevada, that make out when we count illegals. Honestly, if it were to happen it will probably be a wash. But at the core, this proposal, to only count citizens, is completely immoral. You count "whole people", that is the Constitutional mandate. And I ask again, and fully expect you not to answer. Are illegal immigrants not "whole" people?

I mean do you really want a nation where Congressional representatives do not have an allegiance to all the people in their state, just the citizens? I mean what is next. Don't contribute at least $100,000 to a PAC, no vote for you. You are not a "whole" person? I mean do you people not think things through?

 

[AntonToo]

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.

SC has consistently held that Constitution requires counting all individuals residing in a state, regardless of their citizenship status.

It's only an open legal question in the minds of people who know nothing about this.

There would need to be a Constitutional amendment to change that and the sooner rightwingers get that the sooner they could stop wasting everyone's time with what ammounts to moot emotions about a very clearly written law.

 

[MisterBeale]

I didn't say "non-nauralized citizens", I said "non-naturalized persons".

The same phrase you used to which I was responding.

WW
.
.
.

View attachment 1150959

Yoar lawyering on this looks ridiculous.

Intelligent folks know what you are doing. . . I never got that quote from the part of the Constitution that gives the states the right to enforce immigration law.

The only way someone can disagree with it, is if they use their emotions rather than their intellect, genuinely just hate the Constitution & the way America operates and don't have much integrity.

Q.E.D.

 

[Edgetho]

When the Constitution was approved, this country did not have or even imagine what a disaster you Liberals would create with open borders. Because of the damage caused, it is absolutely imperative that changes are made to deal with all the invaders DEMONRATS have invited into the US. I fully approve a change to the Constitution or at least a WORK AROUND!

When the Constitution was ratified, if you had told them that we would have Americans on The Moon, they would have burnt you at the stake for being a witch or a sorcerer.

dimocrap scum, because they are scum, are trying to apply 21st Century thinking to 18th Century documents. We didn't know what our borders were back then. We used Flint Lock Muskets to fight wild savages trying to capture and either enslave or devour our children, murder our men and rape our women. The British and the French didn't care about us except for how they could exploit us and we barely survived. Few thinking people of the time expected us to survive more than twenty years.

But we did. And despite the presence of what I would call dimocrap scum back then, we survived and became the best Country the Earth has ever known. The richest, the most fair, with most opportunity to the most people, and the most powerful Country the world has ever known. Despite being fought tooth and nail the whole way by dimocrap scum. They may have been called the Tories or Loyalists or democrats back then, but they were still dimocrap scum. Same as today, different names, same people. dimocrap scum have been with us since the beginning.

What kind of people want to count ILLEGAL TRESPASSERS in our Census?

dimocrap scum.

What people wanted to Count Slaves in the Census 250 years ago? Even though they weren't allowed to vote, own land, travel, have a family or even live without fear? So guess who would benefit from that travesty....

What people? dimocrap scum. The Slavers. They would have over double the Congressional Representatives as the Non-Slave States.

And when we came to an agreement with dimocrap scum slavers and established the 3/5ths rule, dimocrap scum of today, being stupid as ****, tried to use it against us to portray the Framers as racists. That didn't last too long because people today are what you call 'literate'.

It's really simple.... If dimocrap scum are FOR something, it's wrong. Without fail. Every time.

 

[BackAgain]

Changing the methodology to ask the question is one thing.

Changing the methodology to exclude persons is another.

Not when the change in methodology is for the purpose of excluding illegal aliens as a basis for representation

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

WW

Ok. But many people don’t share your opinion. As a matter of law, there hasn’t yet been presented any argument that the objective cannot be properly achieved by altering the methodology.

And to alter it makes sense.

 

[BackAgain]

I use AI as a foundation for research. I have Madison's transcriptions of the debates open in a tab, and I read your SCOTUS decision which pretty much said, we don't want to touch this issue with a hot poker. Dissent was pretty telling. I mean nothing is perhaps more telling than the fact that not a single delegate, that opposed the 3/5th compromise, said a damn thing about citizenship. Nope, they argued that if we are going to count slaves, which were property, we should count cows and sheep.

Again, it is not just California, but Texas, Florida, and Nevada, that make out when we count illegals. Honestly, if it were to happen it will probably be a wash. But at the core, this proposal, to only count citizens, is completely immoral. You count "whole people", that is the Constitutional mandate. And I ask again, and fully expect you not to answer. Are illegal immigrants not "whole" people?

I mean do you really want a nation where Congressional representatives do not have an allegiance to all the people in their state, just the citizens? I mean what is next. Don't contribute at least $100,000 to a PAC, no vote for you. You are not a "whole" person? I mean do you people not think things through?

The SCOTUS decision was a deferral. That much seems clear.

Otherwise you once again fail to support your argument that the methodology of how we take the Census must include illegal aliens for purposes of representation.

 

[Independent thinker]

Why counting illegal aliens in the Census is wrong explained calmly and clearly in a video, and related matters.



This ^ is a cool, calm and accurate statement about how and why it is wrong to count illegal aliens in the Census for purposes of representation in the House and, thus, for the electoral college.

I agree with it. And I’m curious who can honestly and logically disagree with it. And why?

If illegal aliens get “counted” for other things, such as figuring out ahead of time what resources a State might need, that’s also problematic, too (although more understandable). But to allow (as in the example) California to increase its sway over national legislation by rewarding California’s willing acceptance of illegal aliens and encouragement of illegal immigration is simply wrong.

Thoughts? (I mean thoughts about the video. It would be cool to see any thread stay on the actual topic.)

Democrats will say, "But it's in the Constitution".

 

[AntonToo]

Democrats will say, "But it's in the Constitution".

Can you imagine caring whats in the the Constitution?

How radical!

 

[BackAgain]

Can you imagine caring whats in the the Constitution?

How radical!

I can imagine it from Democrats. But only imagine it.

The truth is that, except for the snippets of the Constitution which they think apply only to them, most Democrats don’t even grasp thing one about the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

Democrats will say, "But it's in the Constitution".

When even that claim isn’t true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nah, I will just go with the Constitution, on this one.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why do law breaking criminal ILLEGALS get votes on bills in the U.S. House of Representatives?????????

 

[AntonToo]

I can imagine it from Democrats.

...so you can't even imagine it from Republicans? wtf?

The truth is that, except for the snippets of the Constitution which they think apply only to them, most Democrats don’t even grasp thing one about the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

The truth is that you are out to lunch.

There is no open legal question here, there is only your wishful denial of basic reality.

 

[AntonToo]

Why do law breaking criminal ILLEGALS get votes on bills in the U.S. House of Representatives?????????

Same reason any other law breaking criminals, even incarcerated ones, get represented in US House of Representatives - CONSTITUTION SAYS SO.

 

[Frankenstein]

: 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

The Constitution is used by leftists in these instances, because they know the framers never even thought we would get to the point, where power hungry liberals who can't get enough American citizens to vote for them, would use those here illegally actually the left is using the emotional argument and not a rational one~!

 

[AntonToo]

The Constitution is used by leftists in these instances

Why is the Constitution NOT used by rightwingers in these instances is a much better question.

You can't fault "leftists" for simply pointing out basic law of the land.

 

[Winston]

The SCOTUS decision was a deferral. That much seems clear.

Otherwise you once again fail to support your argument that the methodology of how we take the Census must include illegal aliens for purposes of representation.

Really now. Pull your head out of your ass. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, of the US 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.

Fourteenth 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.
I ask again, are illegal immigrants not whole people, are they not free, are they not taxed. Why can't you answer the questions? Like I said, pull your head out of your ass, from the actual debates, from Madison's transcriptions.

Mr. Butler insisted that the labour of a slave in S. Carolina was as productive & valuable as that of a freeman in Mass*?, that as wealth was the great means of defence and utility to the Nation they were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a Government which was instituted principally for the protection of property, and was itself to be supported by property.M^: Mason, could not agree to the motion, not withstand it was favorable to Virginia because he thought it unjust. It was certain that the slaves were valuable as they raised the value of laud, increased the exports & imports, and of course the revenue, would supply the means of feeding & supporting an army, and might in cases of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important respects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to be excluded from the estimate of Representation.

https://ia903205.us.archive.org/10/items/notesofdebatesin00unit/notesofdebatesin00unit.pdf

That was Butler, from South Carolina. Put that in your AI engine and see what turns out. "As productive and valuable", I think that describes the vast majority of the illegal immigrant population.

I mean what the **** are you afraid of, because make no mistake, this opposition to immigration, and it doesn't matter if it is legal or illegal, it displays nothing but cowardice. And that is pretty damn sad. A bunch of white, uneducated, dumbshits, afraid of some damn immigrants from a third world country. Dude, bring em on.

Look, I get it. If you barely got out of high school, if you are lazy as hell, don't want to work, just want to draw your paycheck like some white, privileged little punk watching cartoons on his cell phone instead of working. I get it. I would be afraid too. I mean you guys are like the little spoiled rich boy, riding the damn bench and striking out every time you come up to bat. Damn Skippy you want to limit who gets to be on the team. Me, I am the lead off batter that gets on base. No worries, I will steal second and third, but I need someone to bring me home, at least with a sacrifice fly. Punk asses like you can't even make contact. Bring me the ones willing to work, the ones willing to sacrifice, the ones that are not worried about protecting what they got, the ones wanting to build more, for all of us.

 

[Frankenstein]

Why is the Constitution NOT used by rightwingers in these instances is a much better question.

We have enough sense to know the framers never thought one party would use the constitution against American citizens