Are "undocumented immigrants" persons?

[MaryP]

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 do keep mentioning "citizen" in there, though, don't they? I can't really make out what that is saying about reducing the number...

 

[MaryP]

Not for voting purposes, no. That should be reserved for citizens, or at least legal permanent residents, alone.

Do you really not see the issue with factoring people who shouldn't even be here in the first place into our electoral process?

Yes, I see the problem. They can't vote, so why would they be counted, right? But apparently the ability to vote wasn't really what the census was about, since it counted women, slaves, children and nonlandowners, none of whom could vote at the time. And each of those nonvoting people were part of the total count regardless. It seems the Founders were basing it on total population, not voting ability. Of course, there weren't illegal aliens, then either--anyone who could get here was welcomed.

The biggest problem with this whole plan of Trump's is that the census doesn't even ask if you are a citizen, let alone require proof you are here legally, so how does anyone actually determine that? The administration has said it can look into other databases and rely on estimates of illegals in an area, but I can't see a state sitting still for having its representation reduced by a government agency making a guesstimate. That's pretty important stuff.

I think the whole proposal was a bone thrown to his base who hate illegals. I don't care how conservative the court is, I can't imagine them agreeing with such a mess of a plan..

 

[NWRatCon]

The apportionment of federal funding is decided by the same population figures that determine congressional representation - did you not read the link ?

Presumes the ability to.

 

[MaryP]

Average wait time to naturalize after filing an N-400 is currently about nine months. That doesn't seem too terribly burdensome.

But except for certain exceptions, you have to live in the US for three years before filing.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But except for certain exceptions, you have to live in the US for three years before filing.

That's actually only for spouses of US citizens. The general time requirement is five years. But the initial claim was "decades." Which it clearly is not.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The difference between the left and right on our illegal immigrants

The right doesn't want to give them legal status. Makes their workers much easier to control future illegal entrants less likely to assume their crimes will be erased.

Democrats want to treat them as human beings forgive their criminal acts and give them benefits with all the rights votes that come with that.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Rich2018]

That is precisely what the debate is about. In theory you could have an entire district without a single citizen living in it. Who should elect that districts congressman under those circumstances?

No-one, members of Congress represent people, not territory

The congressional district boundaries would have to be re-drawn.

 

[Rich2018]

That was the premise of the conversation. Otherwise your comment make no sense. We're talking about representation of citizens.

You said:

...your statement above doesn't make sense unless you're saying that there is a state somewhere that is composed of 100% illegal immigrants...

So again, why 100% and not 50% or 10% or 5% ?

The conversation's premise is not that any state has 100% illegal immigrants. You make absolutely no sense.

 

[Rich2018]

If people will just deny being an illegal immigrant, as you suggested, why does it hurt being asked one way or the other?

Because it results in distorted information ?

This is common knowledge, you know it's common knowledge. Let's not be obtuse.

No, let's be honest, it's entirely you bigotry speaking

You made false and ridiculous claims and you have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to substantiate
You look like a Trump lawyer filing a lawsuit on non-existent fraudulent voting

Stop making stupid claims that you have absolutely NO evidence for and pathetically trying to justify with a label of "common knowledge"
If it's so common, there should be a mountain of evidence for you to draw on, shouldn't there?

But your silence, with regard to evidence, is deafening

I'm ok with your opinion of me based on the lack of intelligence you've shown thus far. I take it as a win.

The only thing your posts show is your high level of prejudice and ignorance, that seemingly you're happy to live with

It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing that you view being called out on making ignorant claims, that you have no ability to substantiate, as a lack of intelligence
Do you even know what a definition of "intelligence" is ?

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, I see the problem. They can't vote, so why would they be counted, right? But apparently the ability to vote wasn't really what the census was about, since it counted women, slaves, children and nonlandowners, none of whom could vote at the time. And each of those nonvoting people were part of the total count regardless. It seems the Founders were basing it on total population, not voting ability. Of course, there weren't illegal aliens, then either--anyone who could get here was welcomed.

The biggest problem with this whole plan of Trump's is that the census doesn't even ask if you are a citizen, let alone require proof you are here legally, so how does anyone actually determine that? The administration has said it can look into other databases and rely on estimates of illegals in an area, but I can't see a state sitting still for having its representation reduced by a government agency making a guesstimate. That's pretty important stuff.

I think the whole proposal was a bone thrown to his base who hate illegals. I don't care how conservative the court is, I can't imagine them agreeing with such a mess of a plan..

Yes, the whole point is to try and get an idea on the demand on services/infrastructure in the state.

If a million people live in a city, it absolutely doesn't matter if 999,999 of them cannot vote

I live in Georgia, yet federal law prevents me from voting, yet I pay taxes
Should I be counted ?

 

[Rich2018]

Presumes the ability to.

Presumes the ability to do what ?

 

[jonny5]

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.

Literally, yes, though I dont know if that was the intention of the writers. However, it seems obvious that we shouldnt count illegals and non citizens for the purpose of assigning federal reps.

Federalist 54 they do mention 'free citizens' not people, but it also mentions person in other areas.

but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons ...

In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 51-60

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

The writers seems to use citizen and person interchangeably, but also liken slaves to inhabitants as opposed to noncitizens. But they also seemed to favor balance

As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.

Which would argue against including illegals.

 

[Rich2018]

Literally, yes, though I dont know if that was the intention of the writers. However, it seems obvious that we shouldnt count illegals and non citizens for the purpose of assigning federal reps.

Why the hell not ?

Don't non-citizens go to US schools, get treated in hospitals, earn welfare benefits, drive on roads/bridges and live in homes that need street lighting, refuse collection and sewage treatment ?

Didn't the infant USA, when the Constitution was written, class 95% of the people living in it as "non citizens". Like blacks, Indians, women, and even white males without property ?

 

[eohrnberger]

Literally, yes, though I dont know if that was the intention of the writers. However, it seems obvious that we shouldnt count illegals and non citizens for the purpose of assigning federal reps.

Federalist 54 they do mention 'free citizens' not people, but it also mentions person in other areas.

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 51-60

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

The writers seems to use citizen and person interchangeably, but also liken slaves to inhabitants as opposed to noncitizens. But they also seemed to favor balance



Which would argue against including illegals.

"However, it seems obvious that we shouldnt count illegals and non citizens for the purpose of assigning federal reps."
From my view as well.
From the stand point of budgeting, allocation of federal dollars for a districts or federal programs (BTW this was not envisioned at the time of the Federalist Papers - its a more recent 'invention') fine, illegal immigrants are people that may or may not need to be served by these programs.

However, only US citizens should be counted the purpose of representation in the US government. I'm failing to see why it would anything but this.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Because it results in distorted information ?

So does not having an indicator of breakdown among our immigrant population.

No, let's be honest, it's entirely you bigotry speaking

You caught me. You're so smart. The minority immigrant who is bigoted against asking questions about citizenship.

You made false and ridiculous claims and you have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to substantiate
You look like a Trump lawyer filing a lawsuit on non-existent fraudulent voting

Stop making stupid claims that you have absolutely NO evidence for and pathetically trying to justify with a label of "common knowledge"
If it's so common, there should be a mountain of evidence for you to draw on, shouldn't there?

But your silence, with regard to evidence, is deafening

I made false claims? You're the one pretending sanctuary cities/states don't exist and people freely lie on immigration and custom forms with no detrimental impact, yet you're convinced asking someone's citizenship status is bigoted. I also like the random bold/capital/italic words. I'm going to start DOING that going FORWARD. This clearly makes my argument MORE intelligent and doesn't make me seem RIDICULOUS.

It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing that you view being called out on making ignorant claims, that you have no ability to substantiate, as a lack of intelligence

I'm SORRY you're so DEPRESSED. If you STRUGGLE to discuss current events online you should take a BREAK.

Do you even know what a definition of "intelligence" is ?

Is one definition of "intelligence" using CAPITAL letters with BOLD and ITALIC fonts while putting spaces before PUNCTUATION ? Or perhaps it's writing out entire sentences and not using punctuation at all
Maybe another definition could be
Using new lines for each
Train of thought
It's almost like I'm writing a limerick ?

 

[Rich2018]

So does not having an indicator of breakdown among our immigrant population.

How ?

Why does the immigrant population need to be "broken down", does an immigrant represent a greater/lesser demand on a state's resources ?

How does a state benefit if it knew the proportion of immigrants ?

But this is entirely moot, are you seriously suggesting that people will check a bout effectively saying they're here illegally - and on a form containing their address
You talk about "intelligence" and make a statement like that !

You caught me. You're so smart. The minority immigrant who is bigoted against asking questions about citizenship.

No but I can see how you might perceive so based on the level of your responses and claims


Exactly how is an (illegal) immigrant's reluctance to identify himself, a "bigoted" response
It is you who brand certain states as not "comply with "illegal immigration enforcement" or "encourage illegal immigrants to shelter there while they shield them from law enforcement" that is bigoted

Bigoted claims for which you cannot offer anything resembling evidence - just some pathetic comment that it's "common knowledge" - as if knowledge so "common" is bereft of substantive evidence

I made false claims?

Yes, see above

You're the one pretending sanctuary cities/states don't exist...

If they do, it's up to YOU to demonstrate that they do with a little thing called "evidence"
Not make fallacious claims, based on your personal bigotry, and try and pass them off as fact with a ridiculous claim that it's "common knowledge"

It is not "knowledge", nor is it "common" - as shown by your COMPLETE lack of supporting EVIDENCE

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it doesn't make it true, even if your mind readily accepts it as such

I'm SORRY

You missed the definite article

...if you STRUGGLE to discuss current events ...

Discussing current affairs is one thing
Contemplating your unsubstantiated and bigoted lies is quite another

Is one definition of "intelligence" using CAPITAL letters with BOLD and ITALIC fonts while putting spaces before PUNCTUATION ? Or perhaps it's writing out entire sentences and not using punctuation at all

No

Maybe another definition could be using new lines for each train of thought

No, try again

You have no idea what a definition of intelligence is do you ?
The simplest definition is "the ability to understand"
That does not mean the propensity to parrot bigoted lies you heard elsewhere and have no way of substantiating

It's almost like I'm writing a limerick ?

No, a Limerick at least contains an element of humor. You're not even funny.

 

[GummyVitamins]

No, a Limerick at least contains an element of humor. You're not even funny.

Your not even comprehensible.

 

[Rich2018]

Your not even comprehensible.

What a comeback !

Maybe if you focused more on your education, sentences with longer words in them, might start to make sense to you ?

 

[GummyVitamins]

What a comeback !

It's not a comeback. It's a fact. Please take that extra education you think you have and apply yourself to some writing and grammar lessons.

 

[Rich2018]

It's not a comeback.

I was being charitable

(and properly speaking you should have written: it was not a comeback)

It's a fact.

Your posting history teaches us to be somewhat skeptical of anything you state to be a "fact"

A "fact" to you is merely your bigoted opinion and in many cases it's doubtful that it even originates from your mind, rather the minds of others you expose yourself to

Please take that extra education you think you have and apply yourself to some writing and grammar lessons.

You realize that statement makes no sense ?

Research the correct usage of the word "apply"

As for "extra", are you bragging about your high school education ?
It certainly hasn't enabled you to construct a credible argument; relying of bigoted prejudice to spread lies that you are incapable of substantiating

What other jewels of "common knowledge" do you hold as gospel truth I wonder ?

 

[MaryP]

Literally, yes, though I dont know if that was the intention of the writers. However, it seems obvious that we shouldnt count illegals and non citizens for the purpose of assigning federal reps.

Federalist 54 they do mention 'free citizens' not people, but it also mentions person in other areas.

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Federalist Nos. 51-60

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

The writers seems to use citizen and person interchangeably, but also liken slaves to inhabitants as opposed to noncitizens. But they also seemed to favor balance



Which would argue against including illegals.

I don't see how that follows.

 

[Rich2018]

I don't see how that follows.

Indeed, as only about 5% of the population had suffrage, when the Constitution was ratified, would not the other 95% go towards the apportionment of representatives ?

 

[Nickyjo]

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?

Constitution specifies persons residing as worthy of representation, I assume. What I don’t get is how the government would know who is here legally or not in this context. Anybody know what is proposed to make that happen?

 

[Rich2018]

Constitution specifies persons residing as worthy of representation, I assume. What I don’t get is how the government would know who is here legally or not in this context. Anybody know what is proposed to make that happen?

The government knows how many US citizens there are by checking the list of Social Security numbers.

Your SSN data contains details as to your status.

 

[MaryP]

Well, it got heard. This analyst was obviously disappointed.

Thoughts on Today's Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. New York

Many of the justices seem intent on avoiding the substantive issues at stake in a case challenging the legality of Trump's plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count for congressional representation.

reason.com

In sum, this was one of the least informative oral arguments I have ever seen in a major Supreme Court case. The one thing we learned is that many of the justices may prefer to avoid deciding the substantive issues at stake. Whether they will be able to do so remains to seen.

but if you want to hear it for yourself,

<em>Trump v. New York</em> Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in [Trump v. New York], a case on whether President Trump has the authority to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census apportionment base, which determines how many congressional seats each state gets. The president expressed his intention to exclude...

www.c-span.org

It seems the Court wasn't too impressed with the plan on how to actually figure out how many illegals are in a state. Among other things. They will rule by the end of December.