• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are "undocumented immigrants" persons?

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,873
Reaction score
8,364
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Monday, 30th November, the case Trump v. New York will be argued before the Supreme Court.

The Court's decision in the case may or may not affect the 2020 elections. The Trump administration will be arguing that "undocumented immigrants" (illegal aliens) should not be considered "persons" for the purpose of congressional representation numbers. Trump has said, on more than one occasion that some states are over-represented in Congress due to the number of illegals in those states.


The 14th Amendment, Section 2 would appear to contradict Trump while supporting the idea that all humans/persons should be counted during the national census that takes place every 10 years. Although the Amendment does state that "Indians not taxed" were not to be counted. Native Americans did not become American citizens until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, even after the passage of that Act some states refused to call Indians "citizens' if they lived on a designated reservation, until 1957.

 
They are human beings on American soil so they should be treated as persons
 
joko104 said:
Not Indians who are not taxed.
Click to expand...
Well of course. I admit my fault in that statement and should add "who are taxed" after the "American soil" part.

joko104 said:
You want illegal immigrants treated as full citizens, not just as a person.
Click to expand...
How do you expect undocumented immigrants to be treated as full citizens when even legal immigrants can't get citizenship even when they live in the US for decades?
 

I'm completely ok with legal immigrants who have been in the US for decades and have no felony conviction being granted full American citizenship.
 
joko104 said:
I'm completely ok with legal immigrants who have been in the US for decades and have no felony conviction being granted full American citizenship.
Click to expand...

Your MAGnAnimity towards legal immigrants is commendable.
 
Spakian said:
How do you expect undocumented immigrants to be treated as full citizens when even legal immigrants can't get citizenship even when they live in the US for decades?
Click to expand...
...and why can't they naturalize? Don't leave us hanging in suspense like this.
 
The census is used for budgeting very important programs. These cities and programs are American. I can’t understand cutting funds for FEMA or other humanitarian issues based on citizenship. I would also wonder about legal immigrants but not yet naturalized or recognized as American citizens. I can’t think of a good reason for doing this as far as being a decent human being goes.
 
Associated Press, this morning with more on the case

High court takes up census case, as other count issues loom
Click to expand...

Obviously, this move by the Trump administration is an attempt to reduce the number of Representatives presently elected in states which lean to the left. The article notes that California could lose as many as 3 seats in the House. The question then is: Which states would gain seats?

Wyoming, Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Delaware, & Alaska - are the states with only one Representative. What is common, with one exception, with these states?

Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island each have 2 Representatives.
 
Spakian said:
They are human beings on American soil so they should be treated as persons
Click to expand...
So are nonimmigrant visitors who are here for a week. Should they be counted in the census? Should prison inmates be counted in the location where they are incarcerated or the last place the lived before going to prison?
 
This should be an easy, no-brainer call for any principled jurist, especially an "originalist". Article I, Section 2, clause 3 or the Constitution states, in pertinent part: From the outset, everyone was counted. Even slaves and Indians were acknowledged as "persons", even if they were excluded or only accounted for as 3/5ths worth. It's simple to note that there was no distinction for citizenship or other status.

And, by the way, the President is given no role in "adjusting" those numbers. It's an Article I (Legislative) function.
 
NWRatCon said:
It's simple to note that there was no distinction for citizenship or other status.
Click to expand...
In the text, sure. But are you certain that's how it actually operated? Did census-takers go to local inns to tally people who were visiting from another state and count them as part of that state's population, even though they were only temporarily staying there? What if the person staying at the inn was Lord Charles von Britishsnob and he was going to be there for only a month negotiating for a supplier of fine monocles before returning to Jolly Olde England? Would he have been counted? If the War of 1812 had actually been the War of 1810, would you consider the Constitution to require counting of the invading British troops?

Where do you draw the line, why do you draw it there, and what evidence do you have to support your interpretation as the one that was intended?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
You said:

So what are you talking about, then?
Click to expand...
Yeah. They can't get citizenship status even after applying because they have to wait a long time. My second statement was under the assumption that the immigrant applied for citizenship already and is waiting to get citizenship status
 
Spakian said:
Yeah. They can't get citizenship status even after applying because they have to wait a long time. My second statement was under the assumption that the immigrant applied for citizenship already and is waiting to get citizenship status
Click to expand...
Average wait time to naturalize after filing an N-400 is currently about nine months. That doesn't seem too terribly burdensome.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Average wait time to naturalize after filing an N-400 is currently about nine months. That doesn't seem too terribly burdensome.
Click to expand...
My parents filled that form 7 years ago and they still haven't gotten a Green card. The wait time for Indian immigrants is really long, and 9 months comes from the immigrants from other countries (non-Asian) who get citizenship faster.
 
Spakian said:
My parents filled that form 7 years ago and they still haven't gotten a Green card. The wait time for Indian immigrants is really long, and 9 months comes from the immigrants from other countries (non-Asian) who get citizenship faster.
Click to expand...
If your parents filled out an N-400 to get an I-551 ("green card"), they're going to be waiting literally forever. An N-400 is the form that begins the process of naturalization after having been a permanent resident and satisfying residency requirements. I'm curious to know what the basis for their immigration to the US would be. You indicate you're in Minnesota (SKOL!), which suggests you're probably a US citizen, and could therefore petition for your parents to immigrate with an IR5 visa, which is not subject to annual caps like the F1-F4 family preference visas. They could get their visas approved in maybe a year if you went that route.

Nobody "gets citizenship faster" based on their country of origin. Certain immigrants have residency requirements that are shorter than others, but that is based wholly on the type of visa they used to enter the country, not their nationality.
 
What a silly question. Illegal immigrants are persons here illegally. People in prison for rape are persons that committed rape. People that are in prison for theft are persons that stole shit.

There isnt a question as to whther or not they are persons. That doesnt chnage the fact that when they come here illegally they should be caught and sent home and denied legal entry for demonstrating a willingness to violate our laws.

You know...like Obama said.

“Those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws”
 
Spakian said:
My parents filled that form 7 years ago and they still haven't gotten a Green card. The wait time for Indian immigrants is really long, and 9 months comes from the immigrants from other countries (non-Asian) who get citizenship faster.
Click to expand...
I agree that some reforms could be made to improve our current system but that does not excuse illegal immigration. Nobody has the right to immigrate here. It is a privilege that we generously offer to some people.

As an ethical matter, we should not provide a group of uninvited people representation in Congress. As a legal matter, I will leave that up to the judicial branch to determine.

I am curious what is the argument for them being giving congressional representation?
 
Ideally the census should count everybody, in practice it's hard to see why people would return census information listing illegals

However the resources a state has - transport infrastructure, hospitals etc are used by both legal and illegal residents

So representation/federal funds should reflect how many PEOPLE live in a state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…