• 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!

Should the census count illegals?

Should the census count illegals? Post a Poll

  • Total voters
    28
RightinNYC said:
Law: "Ice cream is banned"
Me: "Like the law says, we shouldn't be eating ice cream."
You: "That's obviously not what the law means, when they passed it they were really thinking about iced cream, like if you took those little cream packets from McDonalds and froze them and threw them at cars. They banned that because its dangerous.
Me: "No, the law says 'ice cream is banned'"
You "How about you name a good reason that ice cream should be banned, since the law doesn't agree."
Click to expand...

Best. Analogy. Ever.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
You are aware that not all Native Americans did not become citizens until 1924? So apparently the 14th does not apply to non-citizens.

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

What? The 14th specifically noted how Native Americans were treated differently in determining the census, not because they were not citizens, but because they had a unique and sovereign relationship with our country. When we included them as taxed citizens, they became countable for representation purposes.

If they had intended the 14th to apply to citizens instead of persons, they would have said citizens. This isn't really debatable.
 
I'm quite surprised that Komrade Partisan hasn't yet shouted that the majority of illegal immigrants are "untaxed Indians." He must be having some connectivity issues. :rofl
 
Cochise said:
I'm quite surprised that Komrade Partisan hasn't yet shouted that the majority of illegal immigrants are "untaxed Indians." He must be having some connectivity issues. :rofl
Click to expand...

While the INDIGENOUS Indians pretty much get a free ride, I'm OK with that...;)
It is the illegal Indians from south of the border I have a problem with....;)
& let's not forget the illegal asians as well.....;)
Glad to see they got the power restored on the Rez, Chief.....:)
 
Last edited:
American said:
James you need to qualify this poll. Count illegals for what purpose, just to see how many there are, count them as part of the population, or what? That would leave the problem of how to find them in order to count them. :mrgreen: Good luck.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think they should be counted just to see how many there are but not be counted in terms of benefits given out. I'm not really sure how well that would work though.
 
Of course they should be counted. You might not like the fact that they're here, but they ARE here.

The census is like the bathroom scale: Its job is to give accurate measurements. You may not like the results, but you don't pass a law to artificially change them.
 
Kandahar said:
Of course they should be counted. You might not like the fact that they're here, but they ARE here.

The census is like the bathroom scale: Its job is to give accurate measurements. You may not like the results, but you don't pass a law to artificially change them.
Click to expand...

When they started the census originally, it wasn't crafted with such intrusive questions such as family income and worth.

It is now used as a general guide on disbursing federal dollars.
The context has changed and they shouldn't be counted because they may not even stay.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
When they started the census originally, it wasn't crafted with such intrusive questions such as family income and worth.

It is now used as a general guide on disbursing federal dollars.
The context has changed and they shouldn't be counted because they may not even stay.
Click to expand...

We might have added some questions in order to give us a better idea of how to distribute money, but that doesn't change the fact that the constitutionally required purpose of the census is to apportion representation, for which it requires a count of all persons.

I don't see anything wrong with using two different sets of numbers - citizens + illegals for determining representation, and citizens for distributing benefits.
 
RightinNYC said:
We might have added some questions in order to give us a better idea of how to distribute money, but that doesn't change the fact that the constitutionally required purpose of the census is to apportion representation, for which it requires a count of all persons.

I don't see anything wrong with using two different sets of numbers - citizens + illegals for determining representation, and citizens for distributing benefits.
Click to expand...

I don't care if illegals are here but they have no right to representation, none at all.
They have no right to government benefits either.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't care if illegals are here but they have no right to representation, none at all.
They have no right to government benefits either.
Click to expand...

That's a perfectly valid policy argument, but the Constitution explicitly requires that they be counted for purposes of representation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You can't vote unless your a citizen, so it legally doesn't fit.

You can't choose your representative if your here illegally.
Click to expand...

They clearly contemplated this:

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Click to expand...

They specifically draw distinctions between persons and citizens, saying that all persons must be counted for representation, but only citizens get to vote.

There is plenty of legislative history to support this conclusion as well:

http://www.thecensusproject.org/factsheets/20090917-crs-census-memo.pdf
 
Partisan said:
While the INDIGENOUS Indians pretty much get a free ride, I'm OK with that...;)
It is the illegal Indians from south of the border I have a problem with....
Click to expand...

Indigenous cultural boundaries are not formed by national divisions. Or have you already forgotten this?

NorthAmericanCulture.png


I suppose you've never heard of the Jay Treaty regarding the U.S.-Canada border or the Tohono O'odham nation, or even the "binational" Apache. That tends to happen when you watch The Road to El Dorado too many times and assume that every redskin south of the border is an "Aztec." :2wave:

Partisan said:
& let's not forget the illegal asians as well.....
Click to expand...

Or better yet, the illegal Europeans. I think you'd be happier in your homeland, anchor baby. ;)

Partisan said:
Glad to see they got the power restored on the Rez, Chief.....:)
Click to expand...

The Mescalero reservation is in New Mexico. Since you apparently read user profiles with the same proficiency as posts, I live in Arizona, within the confines of the Navajo reservation, but as I'm certainly not a Navajo, I'm afraid I wouldn't be a chief, lad.
 
RightinNYC said:
They clearly contemplated this:

They specifically draw distinctions between persons and citizens, saying that all persons must be counted for representation, but only citizens get to vote.

There is plenty of legislative history to support this conclusion as well:

http://www.thecensusproject.org/factsheets/20090917-crs-census-memo.pdf
Click to expand...

Then whats the point of counting them, if they aren't represented and they aren't allowed to receive benefits what purpose does it serve?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then whats the point of counting them, if they aren't represented and they aren't allowed to receive benefits what purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...

They're still affected by what the government does. Felons and people under 18 don't get to vote, but we still count them for purposes of representation.
 
the makeout hobo said:
What does the Constitution say?
Click to expand...

Hey, there's an idea.

"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."

(subject to the changes of the 14th amendment of course)

So it basically says "Persons." Not citizens, or citizens and legal aliens. Just persons.
 
RightinNYC said:
We might have added some questions in order to give us a better idea of how to distribute money, but that doesn't change the fact that the constitutionally required purpose of the census is to apportion representation, for which it requires a count of all persons.

I don't see anything wrong with using two different sets of numbers - citizens + illegals for determining representation, and citizens for distributing benefits.
Click to expand...

Persons in the country illegally should not be represented in Congress.

The Congress wasn't established for their benefit.

Read that part of the Constitution you deem "irrelevant", the Preamble.
 
Yes...as undocumented and illegal immigrants...
 
Once more, can we differentiate here between opinion and fact?

WILL illegal aliens be counted? Yes, because that's what the Constitution and the law provides. This is a fact, it's not subject to debate.

SHOULD they be counted? That's what this discussion should be about.
 
Groucho said:
Once more, can we differentiate here between opinion and fact?

WILL illegal aliens be counted? Yes, because that's what the Constitution and the law provides. This is a fact, it's not subject to debate.

SHOULD they be counted? That's what this discussion should be about.
Click to expand...

You mean like the title of the thread says?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean like the title of the thread says?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. However, too many here are trying to support their opinion by arguing that the law and the Constitution says something that it does not.

Members of Congress are trying to change the law now so as not to count illegals, which is a pretty good indication that even they know what the law really is.

Arguing that the law does not allow the counting of illegals is incorrect; that's all I am saying. Should the law be changed? That's a worthy subject for debate.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't care if illegals are here but they have no right to representation, none at all.
They have no right to government benefits either.
Click to expand...

I care that they are here and find it a big problem but totally agree with the rest of your post. Pretty much sums up my feelings on it.
 
Groucho said:
WILL illegal aliens be counted? Yes, because that's what the Constitution and the law provides. This is a fact, it's not subject to debate.
Click to expand...

If only that were so simple. There's a solid contingent here who would tell you that no means yes and up means down.

SHOULD they be counted? That's what this discussion should be about.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the laws made in Congress affect them like everyone else. If we include felons and children, I don't see why we shouldn't count illegals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom