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

[MisterBeale]

Over the years, various posters have said the US constitution is the greatest document on the planet.

One puzzling observation is, for such a great document, you guys fight over the wording every single day. Just imagine if it was crap

Get it rewritten to quit the petty arguements.

Never.

It would give the globalists, the crown, and leftists an opportunity to rob the liberty of Americans citizens.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It doesn't say that in the Constitution.

So you think the founders intended on illegals to influence our elections? Having electoral vote numbers increased by illegal population is basically the same as them voting.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

So the question is, did the framers ever envision that there would be tens of millions of illegals in the country? Or did they write that assuming that the word "persons" were assumed to be citizens, as they wouldn't have had any idea that there would be millions of illegals immigrants?

 

[Zincwarrior]

So the question is, did the framers ever envision that there would be tens of millions of illegals in the country?

SOunds like you need to get on that Constitutional Amendment then, and pronto!*


*The funny part is thinking illegal immigrants are filling out the census in the first place...

 

[BrokeLoser]

Over the years, various posters have said the US constitution is the greatest document on the planet.

One puzzling observation is, for such a great document, you guys fight over the wording every single day. Just imagine if it was crap

Get it rewritten to quit the petty arguements.

The arguments never existed in Real America….Only recently with DIVERSITY did the Hate America faction emerge with the hopes that our Framers authored a Constitution by the people for the people that would **** over American citizens and benefit Mexico’s people…NOBODY made such ridiculous arguments before the loons like Winston Zincwarrior and Moonglow were manufactured.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So the question is, did the framers ever envision that there would be tens of millions of illegals in the country? Or did they write that assuming that the word "persons" were assumed to be citizens, as they wouldn't have had any idea that there would be millions of illegals immigrants?

No that's not the question.

The question is that Constitution is what it is, therefore should we:

• Change the Constitution to reflect the new desired outcome, or
• Just be like the liberals, call it a living document, and do what we want and ignore the Constitution.

WW

 

[BrokeLoser]

No that's not the question.

The question is that Constitution is what it is, therefore should we:

• Change the Constitution to reflect the new desired outcome, or
• Just be like the liberals, call it a living document, and do what we want and ignore the Constitution.

WW

The “desired outcome” is the same as it has always been.
Judicial rulings must be more reflective of Framer intent and less about semantics and word games.
NOBODY even half sane and not named Humberto could think our Framers intended to write one word that would help Mexico’s people **** Americans over.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The “desired outcome” is the same as it has always been.
Judicial rulings must be more reflective of Framer intent and less about semantics and word games.
NOBODY even half sane and not named Humberto could think our Framers intended to write one word that would help Mexico’s people **** Americans over.

At the time the Constitution was framed there were no such things as Illegals. So how can you say their intent was to exclude them.

81 Years after the original Constitution another group framers used pretty much the exact same language and this time there were defiantly persons in different categories (citizens, legal residents, and illegals) and yet they choose not to limit the appropriation of Representatives to be based solely on citizen count.

I have no qualms about supporting an amendment to provide that apportionment of Representatives is based on citizen counts and that total population be for other purposes. But it needs to be done the right way.

WW

 

[BrokeLoser]

At the time the Constitution was framed there were no such things as Illegals. So how can you say their intent was to exclude them.

81 Years after the original Constitution another group framers used pretty much the exact same language and this time there were defiantly persons in different categories (citizens, legal residents, and illegals) and yet they choose not to limit the appropriation of Representatives to be based solely on citizen count.

I have no qualms about supporting an amendment to provide that apportionment of Representatives is based on citizen counts and that total population be for other purposes. But it needs to be done the right way.

WW

The U.S. was a nation founded for and built by free white people…That hurts feelings but that’s the truth…Our great Founders/Framers NEVER wanted dark people to influence ANYTHING here.
Show this to Zincwarrior.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Never.

It would give the globalists, the crown, and leftists an opportunity to rob the liberty of Americans citizens.

Why on earth claim it's the greatest document and then forever and a day, claw at each others eyes over the wording? You're a funny bunch.

You should change it from constitution to oxymoron.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Why on earth claim it's the greatest document and then forever and a day, claw at each others eyes over the wording? You're a funny bunch.

You should change it from constitution to oxymoron.

Its not the document or the wording that is the problem…it is the America hating left that is the problem…Real America never struggled with constitutional order…You see that right?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Its not the document or the wording that is the problem…it is the America hating left that is the problem…Real America never struggled with constitutional order…You see that right?

I'm in the UK and I just forever see Americans scream on about their constitution. I've never witnessed any other country do this.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I'm in the UK and I just forever see Americans scream on about their constitution. I've never witnessed any other country do this.

No other nations are as fucked up as the UK and the U.S. are…Both have the same problem…LEFTISM

 

[ThisIsMe]

SOunds like you need to get on that Constitutional Amendment then, and pronto!*

We dont need an amendment, just a clear understanding of what they meant when they wrote the document.

*The funny part is thinking illegal immigrants are filling out the census in the first place...

Then why are democrats against having a citizenship question on the census?

 

[MisterBeale]

Why on earth claim it's the greatest document and then forever and a day, claw at each others eyes over the wording? You're a funny bunch.

You should change it from constitution to oxymoron.

Because making a new one is pointless if the leaders aren't even following the current one.

The entire establishment, judges, and elected officials, regular folks are all being surveilled and black-mailed.

A new Constitution will not do anything about that.


What is needed, is to destroy the bureaucratic establishment and restore the Constitution.

Judge Napolitano: The U.S. Will Go Bankrupt, Collapse & Break Up​

4 hours ago

Enforce The US Constitution | Dr. Cynthia McKinney​

 

[BackAgain]

Over the years, various posters have said the US constitution is the greatest document on the planet.

One puzzling observation is, for such a great document, you guys fight over the wording every single day. Just imagine if it was crap

Get it rewritten to quit the petty arguements.

Pass.

 

[Leo123]

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

Why does an illegal alien get representation? It's illegal for them to vote.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm in the UK

Which raises the question, why do you care so much about what is going on here, when you have just as big, or bigger problems on your side of the pond?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why does an illegal alien get representation?

: sigh :

Because the Constitution says count ALL persons. It does not differentiate.

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. I'd even support it. But my (and your) personal beliefs about what "should be" are different then the reality of "what is".

The Constituion says count whole persons, that's what we do. Don't like it change the Consitution.

It's illegal for them to vote.

Voting or not is not a criteria for being counted in the Census.

WW

 

[BrokeLoser]

: sigh :

Because the Constitution says count ALL persons. It does not differentiate.

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. I'd even support it. But my (and your) personal beliefs about what "should be" are different then the reality of "what is".

The Constituion says count whole persons, that's what we do. Don't like it change the Consitution.



Voting or not is not a criteria for being counted in the Census.

WW

Use you head…You’re ******* with the words…Could “whole number of persons” mean whole number of citizens based on what you know about Framer intent…based on the fact that they HATED dark people?