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

[Winston]

When even that claim isn’t true.

Show how it isn't true or STFU.

 

[Independent thinker]

Can you imagine caring whats in the the Constitution?

How radical!

The Constitution doesn't actually say that illegal immigrants will be counted. That is YOUR intpretation of what it says. The Supreme Court ultimately decides the meaning of the Constitution and the meaning was clear in that it refers to slaves. And, yes, all slaves should be counted, even though that greatly benefits democrats who keep blacks in generational servitude.

 

[AntonToo]

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

The framers thought all people residing in the state, except Indians, should count for House representation.

And they wrote it down in Constitution.

And so it is the law of the land.


What you are saying about "one party use" is just some stupid bullshit in your head. Don't like the law? Change the law instead of pointless bitching about political opposition.

 

[AntonToo]

The Constitution doesn't actually say that illegal immigrants will be counted.

Lets change that argument slightly to show how silly it is:

The Constitution doesn't actually say that illegal immigrants citizens will be counted.

It only says "whole people". Are you now going to start arguing that illigal immigrants are somehow half-people maybe?

 

[BackAgain]

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

Not what I said at all. And not a reasonable or honest inference from what I said. I can imagine it even coming from scumbag Dems. I don’t have to imagine it from Republicans, you shitboi.

The truth is that you are out to lunch.

No. The truth is that you’re a scumbag lying sack of shit.

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

There is an open legal issue despite your dishonest denial. You are too dishonest to ever speak coherently about “truth,” Antoinette.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Offhand, I'd say it is wrong because:

1. Illegal aliens are a transient group, not a fixed populous, external to the locus of a state, always changing, shouldn't be there, so why should a state treat them as a permanent responsibility?
2. Illegal aliens are just that: aliens, so why should a state or country count them as a duty to manage and support? They are an unexpected burden that should not be there.
3. Illegal aliens by their very nature do not merit having their own body of representation within the government.
4. By not booking for illegals, states have all the more reason to want to see them removed, as then they are taking from resources allocated and needed for actual citizens and state needs. Counting illegals as part of the census and adding seats and budget for them in effect would be rewarding them for being here illegally.

 

[AntonToo]

Not what I said at all. And not a reasonable or honest inference from what I said.

Of course it is, silly.

I said "Imagine using Constitution"

and you said "I can imagine it from Democrats"

Clearly that implies inability to imagine it from Republicans, because otherwise why would you parse out Democrats?

But lets just set the record here:

You CAN imagine Republicans using the Constitution, and in fact it is NOT ONLY imaginable, but apropriate for ANYONE to use the Constitution when considering a question of law.


Right?

 

[Independent thinker]

Lets change that argument slightly to show how silly it is:

The Constitution doesn't actually say that illegal immigrants citizens will be counted.

It only says "whole people". Are you now going to start arguing that illigal immigrants are somehow half-people maybe?

The Supreme Court interprets what the Constitution says or the meaning behind the Constitution, whenever it needs to be interpretted. That was clearly written around the times of slavery and clearly referred to the counting of slaves. Do you really honestly believe the Supreme Court will agree with your interpretation?

 

[AntonToo]

Illegal aliens by their very nature do not merit having their own body of representation within the government.

Unless that nature is not being "whole people" Constitution says you are wrong and they should be counted.

Maybe someone feels incarcerated criminals "by their very nature" should not be represented, but thats just a feeling, not law.

 

[AntonToo]

The Supreme Court interprets what the Constitution says or the meaning behind the Constitution, whenever it needs to be interpretted. That was clearly written around the times of slavery and clearly referred to the counting of slaves. Do you really honestly believe the Supreme Court will agree with your interpretation?

Supreme Court has consistently held that whole people means just that.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Long way of saying you’ve got nothing.

“Whole person” is as distinguished from the 3/5ths fraction from the compromise and “free” as distinguished from “slaves.” What’s left open, of course, is whether “person” was meant to include aliens of any kind.

Are they persons? Of course. But are they the “persons” referenced in the overarching meaning of “We the people?” Which people?

The answer ain’t exactly a locked room mystery, either. Just finish that sentence fragment from the Preamble to the Constitution. “We the People of the United States ….”

Why would the Founders and the Framers want to include aliens (illegal or illegal) in any subsequent clause which involves representation in our republic? That may make sense to you. But it doesn’t make sense to reasonable people who honestly contemplate the question.

You’re completely unpersuasive and not well educated. But at least you can’t defend your position — once again.

 

[BackAgain]

Supreme Court has consistently held that whole people means just that.

Yeah. Right.

Cite a few such “consistent” holdings, Antoinette.

“People” doesn’t include body parts. That’s true. But what it meant is, obviously, whole not a fraction. You know, a fraction, like say “3/5ths.”

 

[BrokeLoser]

The Constitution does not agree.

It doesn't say that in the Constitution.

It states to count all...The only exception is the untaxed indians.

Counting the population of a State (citizens, legals, and illegals) isn't "wrong". "Right" and "Wrong" are moral judgements. Which isn't what the Census is and the process used to then allocated Represenatives.

There is "what complies with the Constitution" and "what doesn't comply with the Constitution" - that is the measurement.

Article I Section 2 of the Constitution calls for the number of whole persons for apportionment. This language is repeated in Amendment the Fourteenth.

I'm fine with not counting non-citizens for apportionment purposes. Make a case and go through the process to change the Constitution.

Yes it's hard, yes you have to get a lot of people to agree with you. But changing the Constitution shouldn't be easy nor should it be done on a whim.

WW

Actually the way a person disagrees with it from a legal standpoint isn't "emotion", it's to quote the language of the Constitution.

WW

I'd prefer that only citizens were counted, but whatever the case it should be addressed through legislation. Perhaps until then a compromise could be reached that illegals be counted as three fifths a person.

People, persons and citizens…different words but all synonymous in the context of the Constitution.

 

[Winston]

There is an open legal issue despite your dishonest denial. You are too dishonest to ever speak coherently about “truth,” Antoinette.

What is that legal issue? Immigrants are not whole people? I mean make it short and sweet, what is the legal issue in question?

 

[BackAgain]

Show how it isn't true or STFU.

I already have you pathetic troll.

And your instruction for me to STFU is rejected. Too bad for you that you dislike having your ignorant arrogance exposed time and time again.

But, you’re always free to place me in ignore. I promise you, I won’t care.

 

[AntonToo]

What is that legal issue? Immigrants are not whole people? I mean make it short and sweet, what is the legal issue in question?

They are whole people that Constitution supposedly meant should not be counted...when Constitution said to count all whole people except Indians.

The lenghs these fools go to deny the obvious is mind boggling.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Lets change that argument slightly to show how silly it is:

The Constitution doesn't actually say that illegal immigrants citizens will be counted.

It only says "whole people". Are you now going to start arguing that illigal immigrants are somehow half-people maybe?

No, what the intent will be will be to exclude those with disabilities, missing limbs, missing eye, missing finger, etc.

Since obviously they are not "whole people".

WW

 

[Moonglow]

They are whole people that Constitution supposedly meant should not be counted...when Constitution said to count all whole people except Indians.

The lenghs these fools go to deny the obvious is mind boggling.

The slaves were counted.

 

[Moonglow]

No, what the intent will be will be to exclude those with disabilities, missing limbs, missing eye, missing finger, etc.

Since obviously they are not "whole people".

WW

Do bowels need to be full?

 

[Nostra]

The Constitution does not agree.

Lies.