Our Unconstitutional Census

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Again you are absolutely wrong when it comes to the CENSUS....nobody gives a rats ass if you have written extensively on this subject.
You have just been proven to not know what you are talking about!!

In fact eat some humble pie--
http://www.hispanictips.com/20...nt-illegal-immigrants/

?The San Jose Mercury News ran a front-page article yesterday which was kind of interesting, as it posed the question: ?Should illegal immigrants count in the census for determining how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives??

While at first glance, this seems like an easy question to answer, it really isn?t. Historically, up until now, they have counted ? ever since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.
the very amendment that you quoted backing up your assertion is quoted as the reason for counting Illegal immigrants...

http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1403coverage.html --- more...

As of now the USSC has not weighed in on the illegal immigrants issue as it concerns the census.


You problem is all the laws state that all persons are to be counted for the census...illegal and legal....

Until the law is changed you don`t have a leg to stand on....

Is it fair--NO!!
But thats the law!!

MAYEB IF U ADHD SUM MOAR PUNTUACTION your point will get across moar bettar !!!

that is exactly what somebody who cannot defend themselves would resort too---attack the punctuation why don`t you...you cannot attack the message because your a fraud!@!You're arguing a strawman, which is hardly surprising. The USSC has declared that a person is defined as anyone naturalized or born here. This is the foundation of the Roe v. Wade argument. If anyone took the census question to the USSC, they would have to find the same way. Simply because no one has done so yet doesn't make me wrong.

No I am not a straw man..you have been proved wrong on the field of battle!! The USSC has not for the pourpose of a CENSUS declared anything!!!

Show me where the USSC has said a person is defined as...you cannot or you would have provided links to back up your unsubstantiated claim!!

I busted you as a fraud and now you are grasping for staws!!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: marincounty
Maybe they said "inhabitants" because they wanted to account for slaves, just as it makes sense to count illegal aliens, after all they live and work here too.

California has to educate, feed, house and police the illegals, so it only makes sense to count them as residents. It's also the Feds job to remove them from the country, which they aren't doing.

No it doesn't, it just chooses to. It could just as easily round them up and ship them back, but they won't do that.

Just as easily? Are you fucking daft, the logistics alone would be almost impossible and the abuse of civil rights would be rampant as you know there'd be mass confusion and many innocent people would get caught up in it. Besides with the budget crunch CA is facing they they don't have remotely enough money to be able to pull it off.

Fine. I'm the federal government. Here CA, here's 1 billion dollars to ship all your illegals back. Get 'er done. TX, AZ, here's a billion for yawl as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: marincounty
Maybe they said "inhabitants" because they wanted to account for slaves, just as it makes sense to count illegal aliens, after all they live and work here too.

California has to educate, feed, house and police the illegals, so it only makes sense to count them as residents. It's also the Feds job to remove them from the country, which they aren't doing.

No it doesn't, it just chooses to. It could just as easily round them up and ship them back, but they won't do that.

Just as easily? Are you fucking daft, the logistics alone would be almost impossible and the abuse of civil rights would be rampant as you know there'd be mass confusion and many innocent people would get caught up in it. Besides with the budget crunch CA is facing they they don't have remotely enough money to be able to pull it off.

Fine. I'm the federal government. Here CA, here's 1 billion dollars to ship all your illegals back. Get 'er done. TX, AZ, here's a billion for yawl as well.

And what about the abuse of Civil Rights that would arise out of it? Surely there'd be a lot of residents and legal Aliens mistakenly caught up in the sweep of that magnitude. Would those of Hispanic heritage or with dark hair and real good tans have to carry around papers proving their citizenry or legal status.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: marincounty
Maybe they said "inhabitants" because they wanted to account for slaves, just as it makes sense to count illegal aliens, after all they live and work here too.

California has to educate, feed, house and police the illegals, so it only makes sense to count them as residents. It's also the Feds job to remove them from the country, which they aren't doing.

No it doesn't, it just chooses to. It could just as easily round them up and ship them back, but they won't do that.

Just as easily? Are you fucking daft, the logistics alone would be almost impossible and the abuse of civil rights would be rampant as you know there'd be mass confusion and many innocent people would get caught up in it. Besides with the budget crunch CA is facing they they don't have remotely enough money to be able to pull it off.

Fine. I'm the federal government. Here CA, here's 1 billion dollars to ship all your illegals back. Get 'er done. TX, AZ, here's a billion for yawl as well.

You may want to look into buying a new car by GM called Reality. I'd recommend the IAGA series (Illegals Aren't Going Anywhere).

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You're arguing a strawman, which is hardly surprising. The USSC has declared that a person is defined as anyone naturalized or born here. This is the foundation of the Roe v. Wade argument. If anyone took the census question to the USSC, they would have to find the same way.

You realize don't you that it was a US Supreme Court ruling that obligated every state in the union to provide free public schooling to illegal aliens?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Svnla
I read the article yesterday and I was like "WTF x 100000000000000000".

How could someone entered the US ILLEGALLY be counted? What next? Why don't we go ahead and count everyone in Canada, US, and Mexico..heck..go ahead and count central America..and south America too... and call it the day.

I am sure the Constitution writers never immagined the US would be invade by waves and waves of ILLEGALS and the government didn't do jack about it.

Because there was no such thing as illegal immigration when the Constitution was written. What you had to do to be a citizen of the US was.... live here for 2 years. The US didn't start seriously excluding people until the mid 1800's, and that was mostly based upon anti-asian racism.

Makes you think.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You guys realize that slaves were counted in the 1790 Census, as well as tax paying Indians (and all Indians in 1940)? It's really not that much different, the job of the Census is to count people in our country and it does that effectively. If you're unhappy with illegals then you should direct your concern at Immigration (ICE).

Which is the most effective thing to do about it, I agree. However, I stand by my earlier assertion that granting representation base on population including illegals is bullshit.

I say we grant government forgiveness of student loan debt for 5 years service in the INS and knock this crap out. that'll give all those unemployed grads something to do.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
The illegals make this country worse and worse everyday. They are contaminating our culture, cities, and prisons. They are the disease that is weakening this great nation. Everyone knows this.

And yet the nation was founded on it so where did it start to go wrong?

It started to go wrong when Federal Law is being broken and no one is enforcing it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And what about the abuse of Civil Rights that would arise out of it? Surely there'd be a lot of residents and legal Aliens mistakenly caught up in the sweep of that magnitude. Would those of Hispanic heritage or with dark hair and real good tans have to carry around papers proving their citizenry or legal status.

My wife carries her green card with her everywhere, along with her license, and SS card, and why is it that people throw in connotations of racism when discussing illegals? They're not all hispanic.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution CLEARLY states PERSONS are to be counted, not citizens. in other areas the constitution specifies citizens. Therefore it would be unconstitutional to count only citizens and legal aliens. Attempting to equate a decision with regards to voting citizens to a census not only defeats the purpose of a census, but is silly on it's face. Felins and the insane can't vote either, but they are counted.

Well, it says "persons" because slavery existed at the time, and that was needed for the 3/5ths "compromise."

The 14th amendment also uses the words "person" and citizen" interchangeably. In fact, section 3 refers to "persons" who can be Senators, Representatives etc... Using your assumption, any illegal could become a US Senator for example since they are by your definition a "person".

So, no, I do not think a person who has entered this country illegally can and should be counted as a person for purposes of a census. I do recognize it may take a Supreme Court decision to decide which of us are right.

Wrong again.

It most certainly does not, nor does any other part of the Constitution. Of course 'persons' can be Senators, do you know any citizen that isn't a person? Just because all citizens are persons, does not mean that all persons are citizens. For a clearer understanding of the issue let's actually look at the section of Article 1 dealing with Senators:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

It clearly states that this 'person' must also be a 'citizen'. If they were interchangeable that qualification wouldn't exist. Does that make it clearer?

Sorry guys, the Constitution says you need to count 'persons', not 'citizens'. I thought conservatives wanted strict interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Calm down:

1) Census takes into account addresses more or less and each household is mailed a form. So if an area has built more housing units, then you're dam sure that they're going to get a higher number of representatives, illegal or not.

2) It's not Census's job to verify citizenship, do you know how freaking long that would take? Think about how many people voluntarily vote in a national election and how much of a pain it is to verify their information. Then add 175 million more people to track down, it'd be physically impossible to do in <2 years. Even then, some people will have moved already.

The current system is fine: Each housing unit (or GQ) gets a form mailed to them, they mail it back. You should be more worried about people lying about their family size than illegal who occupy a housing unit that anyone can live in. But keep in mind that people who lie still have to be in line with what the city has estimated, so they would all have to be in on it. Even then, address canvassing could still catch them lying about it when enumerators conduct the ground check.

Edit: FYI, I'm probably more qualified on this topic than most on this forum.

I like how everyone ignores your posts so they can continue to shriek about immigrants.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Calm down:

1) Census takes into account addresses more or less and each household is mailed a form. So if an area has built more housing units, then you're dam sure that they're going to get a higher number of representatives, illegal or not.

2) It's not Census's job to verify citizenship, do you know how freaking long that would take? Think about how many people voluntarily vote in a national election and how much of a pain it is to verify their information. Then add 175 million more people to track down, it'd be physically impossible to do in <2 years. Even then, some people will have moved already.

The current system is fine: Each housing unit (or GQ) gets a form mailed to them, they mail it back. You should be more worried about people lying about their family size than illegal who occupy a housing unit that anyone can live in. But keep in mind that people who lie still have to be in line with what the city has estimated, so they would all have to be in on it. Even then, address canvassing could still catch them lying about it when enumerators conduct the ground check.

Edit: FYI, I'm probably more qualified on this topic than most on this forum.

I like how everyone ignores your posts so they can continue to shriek about immigrants.

His point was that it's impractical to figure out who's an illegal and who isn't when conducting the census.

I'd offer that housing is build as it is needed, and illegals create a need for housing, so they are, if only indirectly, inflating representation.

You'll see in another one of his posts later down that he acknowledges that concerns over counting illegals are better addressed through prevention than through screwing with the census.

I think we can all agree that illegals are a problem. They're human beings and they don't deserve to all be treated like garbage, but that's exactly what happens when we leave all these loopholes open and fail to enforce the laws we have. Right and wrong get lost, and people are marginalized. Reform is needed - and I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: marincounty
Maybe they said "inhabitants" because they wanted to account for slaves, just as it makes sense to count illegal aliens, after all they live and work here too.

California has to educate, feed, house and police the illegals, so it only makes sense to count them as residents. It's also the Feds job to remove them from the country, which they aren't doing.

No it doesn't, it just chooses to. It could just as easily round them up and ship them back, but they won't do that.

Just as easily? Are you fucking daft, the logistics alone would be almost impossible and the abuse of civil rights would be rampant as you know there'd be mass confusion and many innocent people would get caught up in it. Besides with the budget crunch CA is facing they they don't have remotely enough money to be able to pull it off.

The reason we have the budget crunch in CA is partly because the state spends too much on illegals. That and a lot of other things we just dump too much money into. First someone argues it's the Feds' jobs to get them out. Now you argue civil rights. So what are you saying? Illegals should just stay? If you don't get caught jumping the border, you can just stay now? Wow.

Look, I sympathize with the people who want to come to the US for a better life, but at point do you just keep giving them a free pass? My parents came here legally, and many others did too. Now you're saying all the work they put in was worthless? Seriously. All the money we spend on supporting illegals can just as well go in deporting them. I'm all for deporting them. You can talk about costs right now all you want, but this is a long term investment. You throw them out, you decrease the overall costs. It's a savings that accumulate over the years. Simple.

It's just like fighting termites. If you have a bad infestation you can talk about the costs of getting an exterminator and instead keep using your Raid spray and letting them in, or you could just bite the costs and call an exterminator so you don't have to keep replacing your patio deck and all these other things as your house falls apart.

Just because we're in a tough hole doesn't mean we should turn our heads away and let the illegals keep pouring in and give them a silent OK.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
No I am not a straw man..you have been proved wrong on the field of battle!! The USSC has not for the pourpose of a CENSUS declared anything!!!

Show me where the USSC has said a person is defined as...you cannot or you would have provided links to back up your unsubstantiated claim!!

I busted you as a fraud and now you are grasping for staws!!

Please, step away from the crack pipe. For your own good.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Athena
You realize don't you that it was a US Supreme Court ruling that obligated every state in the union to provide free public schooling to illegal aliens?

You do realize that that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, right? Can we make a literacy test a requirement for signing up for an AT forums account? :roll:

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution CLEARLY states PERSONS are to be counted, not citizens. in other areas the constitution specifies citizens. Therefore it would be unconstitutional to count only citizens and legal aliens. Attempting to equate a decision with regards to voting citizens to a census not only defeats the purpose of a census, but is silly on it's face. Felins and the insane can't vote either, but they are counted.

I could care less if they "count" them -- my problem, and that described in the OP, is in using their number to alter the number of allocated Representatives, which IS supposed to be based on the number of voters in each district. The drawing of the district lines themselves is also supposed to be based on the number of voters.

Illegals are not "voters" by any definition.

¿comprende?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution CLEARLY states PERSONS are to be counted, not citizens. in other areas the constitution specifies citizens. Therefore it would be unconstitutional to count only citizens and legal aliens. Attempting to equate a decision with regards to voting citizens to a census not only defeats the purpose of a census, but is silly on it's face. Felins and the insane can't vote either, but they are counted.

I could care less if they "count" them -- my problem, and that described in the OP, is in using their number to alter the number of allocated Representatives, which IS supposed to be based on the number of voters in each district. The drawing of the district lines themselves is also supposed to be based on the number of voters.

Illegals are not "voters" by any definition.

¿comprende?

Uh, its not voters. Its based on population.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution CLEARLY states PERSONS are to be counted, not citizens. in other areas the constitution specifies citizens. Therefore it would be unconstitutional to count only citizens and legal aliens. Attempting to equate a decision with regards to voting citizens to a census not only defeats the purpose of a census, but is silly on it's face. Felins and the insane can't vote either, but they are counted.

I could care less if they "count" them -- my problem, and that described in the OP, is in using their number to alter the number of allocated Representatives, which IS supposed to be based on the number of voters in each district. The drawing of the district lines themselves is also supposed to be based on the number of voters.

Illegals are not "voters" by any definition.

¿comprende?

The census is not done by "voters," it's done by "persons". If you did it by voters, you'd lose out on plenty of legal citizens (people that don't vote and/or not registered).

District lines are drawn by the state and the people that draw such lines are usually looking at voter patterns in the region to gerrymander their way into permanent incumbency, but overall, the districts are supposed to have the same number of people in them.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Svnla
I read the article yesterday and I was like "WTF x 100000000000000000".

How could someone entered the US ILLEGALLY be counted? What next? Why don't we go ahead and count everyone in Canada, US, and Mexico..heck..go ahead and count central America..and south America too... and call it the day.

I am sure the Constitution writers never immagined the US would be invade by waves and waves of ILLEGALS and the government didn't do jack about it.

Because there was no such thing as illegal immigration when the Constitution was written. What you had to do to be a citizen of the US was.... live here for 2 years. The US didn't start seriously excluding people until the mid 1800's, and that was mostly based upon anti-asian racism.

Makes you think.

I understand it was back then, we didn't have a lot of people, the standard was much lower. We as a nation in the presence, can't just let anyone sneak in ILLEGALLY without any consequences. Name any countries on earth that you can sneak in illegally.

Just like in the Constitution, a person become a US citizen as long as he/she was born in the US or its territory/land. The Constitution writers NEVER would had thought of ILLEGALS take advance of that and use it for "anchor babies".

As a first generation LEGAL immigrant, I am all for LEGAL immigrant and immediately STOP for ALL ILLEGAL immigration.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The constitution CLEARLY states PERSONS are to be counted, not citizens. in other areas the constitution specifies citizens. Therefore it would be unconstitutional to count only citizens and legal aliens. Attempting to equate a decision with regards to voting citizens to a census not only defeats the purpose of a census, but is silly on it's face. Felins and the insane can't vote either, but they are counted.

I could care less if they "count" them -- my problem, and that described in the OP, is in using their number to alter the number of allocated Representatives, which IS supposed to be based on the number of voters in each district. The drawing of the district lines themselves is also supposed to be based on the number of voters.

Illegals are not "voters" by any definition.

¿comprende?

The census is not done by "voters," it's done by "persons". If you did it by voters, you'd lose out on plenty of legal citizens (people that don't vote and/or not registered).

District lines are drawn by the state and the people that draw such lines are usually looking at voter patterns in the region to gerrymander their way into permanent incumbency, but overall, the districts are supposed to have the same number of people in them.

The census itself can count "persons" all day long, including illegals; but, according to the US Supreme Court, the the drawing of district lines and representative apportionment is supposed to be done using the number of voters as the measure.

Exhibit A:

In the 1964 case of Wesberry v. Sanders, the Supreme Court said, ?The House of Representatives, the [Constitutional] Convention agreed, was to represent the people as individuals and on a basis of complete equality for each voter.?

And by "voter," they meant all who are eligible to legally vote, not just those who might get off their butts to do so.

 

[Pens1566]

/sigh

You should really check article 1, section 2 of the constitution again.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
/sigh

You should really check article 1, section 2 of the constitution again.

Is the USSC the body that is meant to interpret the Constitution, or not?

In 1964, the USSC interpreted the U.S. Constitution to mean that the U.S. House of Representatives is meant to represent "voters," not "persons."

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Me and my family are personally offended by every single illegal leech in this country. My wife and son both were born abroad, and we jumped through all the hoops to get them to be citizens. No reason anyone that wants to live and work here can do it the right way, but they'd rather just leech of our nations success.

Preach on brother. It took years and a lot of money for us <first generation legal immigrants> to bring the rest of our family to the US while those ILLEGALS just crossed the border with almost zero consequences.

If we can achieve the American dream the LEGAL way, then those ILLEGALS must and should do the same. STOP the excuses!!!!!

 

[Pens1566]

For the extremely dense

"Free persons", key term. I have no idea what the context of the case you cited uses the word persons. I can tell what the constitution says, and how the reps have been assigned based on census ever since.

So, now census.gov knows less about how it works than you do?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
This blows my mind, I literally don't know what to say.

People on both sides should be outraged.

Why?

The quicker they take over the better, this slow painful death sucks donkey balls.