U.S. high court broadens scope of census citizenship question case

[EMNofSeattle]

Holy ****.

Why?

You realize counting slave populations at 3/5 artificially increased the political power of slave owners right?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Why?

You realize counting slave populations at 3/5 artificially increased the political power of slave owners right?

At this point, anything I say to you in this thread will cost me more than I am willing to spend.

 

[Praxas]

Not at all...how in the hell would it suppress vote turnout, illegal immigrants aren't allowed to vote.....

And the census....isn't a voting mechanism....

And you dodged it again for the 5th time....

So I take it you think that illegal immigrants should be counted for the census.....ok, so back to my scenario, where organization rounds up 300K hell let's just say 50K volunteers and goes to a rural area, to gain representation for that area (for the right or the left) you seem to be ok with that scenario.

Tell you what. You get the American congress to pull EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT to illegal immigrants including hospital care and THEN you can talk about changing the census. Deal? Until then, no way. There are laws that treat illegal immigrants as HUMAN and until you get that to change, they should be counted on the census.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

At this point, anything I say to you in this thread will cost me more than I am willing to spend.

You mean you went off half cocked without understanding the issue? Got it

 

[sjmay]

Tell you what. You get the American congress to pull EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT to illegal immigrants including hospital care and THEN you can talk about changing the census. Deal? Until then, no way. There are laws that treat illegal immigrants as HUMAN and until you get that to change, they should be counted on the census.

Ok, so then theoretically,

You are perfectly fine with a group, right or left, to take a group of 50K illegal immigrants, to a rural part of the country, so that they can be counted in the census, and thus gain more representation for that group....

 

[sjmay]

No, please tell me where it states that persons who are not born in the United States, or naturalized have a right to be represented by the census?

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.” the only limitation is “Indians not taxed” (which is no longer a consideration).


There’s nothing in the first section about the census or representation.

And since the U.S. had open borders at the time the 14th was ratified (and all times before) it clearly could not exclude illegal immigrants.

And?

The 14th amendment is the ENTIRE amendment, you don't get to pick and choose what sections you want to follow.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You mean you went off half cocked without understanding the issue? Got it

I understand YOUR VIEW of the issue 100 percent.

 

[calamity]

And non citizens should not be counted for anything in congressional representation. One of the biggest mistakes was counting slaves at all. Only enfranchised citizens should be counted because otherwise legal citizens lose representation

Then they should not have to pay taxes. Are you ok with that?

 

[sjmay]

Then they should not have to pay taxes. Are you ok with that?

I think he meant illegal immigrants, not legalized residents,

But either way, do you honestly think illegal immigrants pay taxes? Honest question, I've never heard of one, usually they get paid cash under the table type scenario.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Then they should not have to pay taxes. Are you ok with that?

No they should absolutely pay taxes. If you’re not a citizen you’re here as our guest, we can set whatever conditions we want to that. If you’re a non citizen you have an easy exit which is you can leave the US and return to the rights your home country offers at any time.

States like CA which give out welfare to illegals should not possess 5 extra seats in Congress from their sanctuary policies. The fact is democrats would face a competitive CA and NY in terms of legislative races and congressional Ones if their large non citizen pops couldn’t be apportioned for seats

 

[JMaximus]

Yes, but none of those have the, let’s call it unintended consequence of reducing participation.

So says you.

 

[OscarLevant]

Still not clear on what the 'unconstitutional' outcome is. People may be afraid to respond to a legitimate question because it could expose that they're committing a crime shouldn't impact whether we ask the question.

Well, it would depend on whether or not one wants accurate information the census provides.

They're already unlikely to do so. Non-citizens who are legal residents shouldn't be afraid to answer.

That's an assumption, not a fact.

 

[OscarLevant]

So....in your mind....a group called ABC for Rights of Joes.....can move a group of 300,000 thousand non legal, non citizens into a rural area (pick one, there are plenty) during a census year so they can claim that group needs representation, to gain another seat (right or left, doesn't matter it's wrong on both sides) and that would be ok?

That is literally what you are saying....

No, what you are saying is a strawman.

 

[NWRatCon]

No, please tell me where it states that persons who are not born in the United States, or naturalized have a right to be represented by the census?

And?

The 14th amendment is the ENTIRE amendment, you don't get to pick and choose what sections you want to follow.

No, actually, it is you that don't get to pick. The second clause is unrelated to the first. I don't know if they taught history where you, presumably, went to school, but you have heard of the Civil War, right? And the 13th-15th Amendments were written in response? Sound familiar? But, I digress...

Let's get this out of the way: There is NO QUESTION that all PERSONS get counted in the Census - whether legal residents or not. That is NOT the issue before the court, it is settled law, so most of the arguments in this thread are irrelevant. The question before the court is whether including the citizenship question will make the count inaccurate. That's it.

Now, one reason determined by the lower court to prohibit the question was because of a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (an arbitrary action by Secretary of Commerce Ross, who flat out lied to Congress about it). But this thread started because the Supreme Court changed the question. The question now is, "is including a citizenship question in the Census unconstitutional?" It may be if, by including it, it makes the count inaccurate. Frankly, I don't think the Supreme Court can answer its own question, because the record below is incomplete. That, personally, makes me nervous.

 

[pinqy]

And?

The 14th amendment is the ENTIRE amendment, you don't get to pick and choose what sections you want to follow.

Who said otherwise? You specifically asked which section allowed illegal immigrants to be included in the census. The only part that’s even close to relevant is section 2. And that clearly allows illegal immigrants to be included.

Which other parts do you think are relevant to the question?

 

[sjmay]

Who said otherwise? You specifically asked which section allowed illegal immigrants to be included in the census. The only part that’s even close to relevant is section 2. And that clearly allows illegal immigrants to be included.

Which other parts do you think are relevant to the question?

Section 1, where it literally specifies that the laws and regulations are to be applied to natural born citizens or naturalized citizens including legal permanent residents,

It's insane having this conversation that illegal immigrants should be granted the same representation as citizens, and legal permanent residents....something out of the twilight zone.

The only way this makes sense is that democrats want to increase the representation by counting illegal immigrants, therefore boosting the numbers etc...

It's actually an intriguing constitutional argument that I don't think has been settled by any case law that I can dig up.

 

[pinqy]

Section 1, where it literally specifies that the laws and regulations are to be applied to natural born citizens or naturalized citizens including legal permanent residents[/wuote]

No, it does not say that, literally or figuratively.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Defines, in part, U.S citizenship.

. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
States can’t affect US citizenship.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And switches from “citizen” to “person,” guaranteeing equal protection and due process for all people.

How on earth are you reading that to have anything to do with the census or representation?

It's insane having this conversation that illegal immigrants should be granted the same representation as citizens, and legal permanent residents....something out of the twilight zone.

Since there were no, and could not be any, illegal immigrants or permanent legal residents at the time of the orginsl constitution or the 14th amendment, there could not be any laws differentiating, could there?

The Constitution is quite plain: “persons,” not “citizens” is the rule for representation.

 

[sjmay]

Section 1, where it literally specifies that the laws and regulations are to be applied to natural born citizens or naturalized citizens including legal permanent residents[/wuote]

No, it does not say that, literally or figuratively.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Defines, in part, U.S citizenship.

. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
States can’t affect US citizenship.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And switches from “citizen” to “person,” guaranteeing equal protection and due process for all people.

How on earth are you reading that to have anything to do with the census or representation?


Since there were no, and could not be any, illegal immigrants or permanent legal residents at the time of the orginsl constitution or the 14th amendment, there could not be any laws differentiating, could there?

The Constitution is quite plain: “persons,” not “citizens” is the rule for representation.

Might want to try that last part again....there is absolutely a difference in the Constitution about persons vs citizens, it has been ruled that where the Constitution says persons, everyone is due that "freedom" due process, mirananda, etc, where it says citizen, only US citizens etc, voting rights, etc

I think the key law here is, since the census is taken to figure out representation for voting purposes for Congress, how do you reconcile the difference between the two. Hence where I said it was going to be an interesting court decision.

 

[Deuce]

Might want to try that last part again....there is absolutely a difference in the Constitution about persons vs citizens, it has been ruled that where the Constitution says persons, everyone is due that "freedom" due process, mirananda, etc, where it says citizen, only US citizens etc, voting rights, etc

I think the key law here is, since the census is taken to figure out representation for voting purposes for Congress, how do you reconcile the difference between the two. Hence where I said it was going to be an interesting court decision.

It says persons.

 

[Fishking]

Once again apdst proven wrong by the text of the constitution. Remember when you kept claiming voting isn't a right?

You proved yourself wrong as it says it only counts "free persons" and "excluding Indians" which specifically lays out that just living in an area doesn't mean you automatically count.

 

[Fishking]

From Reuters

U.S. high court broadens scope of census citizenship question case
​

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday broadened the scope of what it will consider in resolving the legal fight over the contentious decision by President Donald Trump’s administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, agreeing also to decide whether the move violated the U.S. Constitution.

In the aftermath of a March 6 ruling by a federal judge in California, the high court said it will decide whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ran afoul of the Constitution’s so-called Enumeration Clause, which sets out the terms under which people should be counted in the census, when he added the citizenship question in March 2018.

Various states including New York and California as well as civil rights groups have challenged the question in court. They have said that asking people about their citizenship could scare immigrants and Latinos into abstaining from the census, disproportionately affecting Democratic-leaning states.

Two judges have blocked the addition of the question. The Supreme Court previously agreed to resolve whether adding the question violated a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act, as a federal judge in New York ruled on Jan. 15.

COMMENT:-

I can see the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling, in effect, "Although the intent of adding the question was NOT to achieve any ends which might have been unconstitutional, the actual effect of adding the question in the form proposed, albeit an unintended result, was to create a situation which gave rise to an unconstitutional outcome. Therefore the question may NOT be added to the census form in the form proposed and this court directs that any further census question on the same topic be referred to this court for vetting in order to determine if an accidental consequence of adding that question would have the unintended effect of creating an unconstitutional situation.".
​

Of course it will "hurt" Democratic-leaning states, it should. It's their own policies that have inflated their numbers with illegal immigrants. They don't get to benefit from seditious policies that undermines the lawn. So far as to where your link says, "They have said that asking people about their citizenship could scare immigrants and Latinos into abstaining from the census," that's simply not true. It will only scare illegal immigrants from answering the census.

 

[pinqy]

Might want to try that last part again....there is absolutely a difference in the Constitution about persons vs citizens, it has been ruled that where the Constitution says persons, everyone is due that "freedom" due process, mirananda, etc, where it says citizen, only US citizens etc, voting rights, etc

Article I Section 2
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.

Persons, not citizens.

Amendment XIV 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.

Persons, not citizens.

And those are the only two sections that deal with representation. Nowhere is it stated, implied, or hinted that representation is to be based on the number of citizens.

 

[Deuce]

You proved yourself wrong as it says it only counts "free persons" and "excluding Indians" which specifically lays out that just living in an area doesn't mean you automatically count.

Citizenship is not a criteria here, so why ask the question?

 

[Deuce]

It will only scare illegal immigrants from answering the census.

Not true.

 

[Fishking]

Citizenship is not a criteria here, so why ask the question?

You literally posted something that supports not counting everyone. Your response to that being pointed out doesn't negate that.