• 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!

17 states sue to block citizenship question on 2020 census

OpportunityCost said:
Bull****. Representatives represent the will of the people in their district that can VOTE.

Hint: illegal immigrants shouldn't be here at all. Let alone be a concern of the census.
Click to expand...

But they are here and the bottom line is that they shouldn't be represented or influence the outcome of an election.
 
Renae said:
They aren't here legally, they need to be tossed out, and deserve NO Representation, that is reserved for CITIZENS.
Click to expand...

Yet, by law, it is not. Our representation has always, by Constitution, been based on bodies, not simply citizenship. By declaring the slave as three-fifths worthy of representation, we codified existence as mattering to representation. It's why an "illegal" in our country is subject to our Rights. Contrary to this would be to announce that the "illegal" has no Rights.

Besides, after we "kick out" the millions of illegals picking our crops, will you pick my grapes? No? But I like my winses! As I stated, this is not such a black and white issue as some want. You have allowed your leadership to politically manipulate you into an anger that really doesn't merit such energy.

I believe we talked before. Were you blue Navy, white Navy, or green Navy? I just like to try to know the military community around here.
 
Last edited:
JacksinPA said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



MARTIN NIEMÖLLER
Click to expand...

:roll: They are being deported not murdered. Quit the drama llama schtick.
 
Mason66 said:
Census takers don't ask for papers or any proof for any of the questions they ask.
Click to expand...

It's the principle of being required possibly to in some way incriminate yourself as an illegal.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It probably should. It should not affect Congressional representation as those in the house represent VOTING districts.
Click to expand...
Aside from the argument that it will depreciate actual voters, because of fears from Hispanic and Latino American citizens, I would be persuadable about counting the citizenry for the sake of ensuring *their* representation was accurately counted and getting another source of information about the numbers of non-citizens (legal or otherwise), as the administration so claims.

However, given that this immediately implicates the resources apportioned out to states for all sorts of programs, I stand opposed to re-introducing this question. Many of our public programs cannot identify or discriminate against persons who are legal citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants. As such, whether you like it or not, you're sharing the same piece of pie with all who inhabit your state. I would think that depreciating the funding levels and quality of services for citizens and legal immigrants alike ought to be a concern for both social conservatives and liberals.



Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
MSgt said:
Yet, by law, it is not. Our representation has always, by Constitution, been based on bodies, not simply citizenship. By declaring the slave as three-fifths worthy of representation, we codified existence as mattering to representation. It's why an "illegal" in our country is subject to our Rights. Contrary to this would be to announce that the "illegal" has no Rights.

Besides, after we "kick out" the millions of illegals picking our crops, will you pick my grapes? No? But I like my winses! As I stated, this is not such a black and white issue as some want. You have allowed your leadership to politically manipulate you into an anger that really doesn't merit such energy.

I believe we talked before. Were you blue Navy, white Navy, or green Navy? I just like to try to know the military community around here.
Click to expand...

Served aboard the USS Inchon.

Thing is, teh 3/5ths compromise was to do with limiting the South's ability to continue slavery, you're misuing that time period. The SLAVES had no representatives.
 
Renae said:
Served aboard the USS Inchon.

Thing is, teh 3/5ths compromise was to do with limiting the South's ability to continue slavery, you're misuing that time period. The SLAVES had no representatives.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Slave states wanted to count the bodies whole despite giving them no legal status or rights, states with slaves (I.e. not a dramatic feature of their economy) or non-slave states wanted nothing to count at all.

The compromise led both sides to come out with a sort of victory. Slave states had limited boost of bonus representation without accrued rights, and states with slaves or non-slave states could argue that they limited the potential outcome from 5/5 down to 3/5.

Frankly, the South came ahead there.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
Because that's exactly what the constitution says. It says the census is supposed to count the people it says nothing about citizenship.

The census is focused on determining the number of people. They need to know the number of people in each state whether they are full-fledged citizens or not because the number of people in the state determines the influence that state should have in Congress.

Contrary to popular belief non-citizens usually pay taxes of some sort. They also use many of the utilities that the state provides like roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police, fire departments. So when determining the amount of funding a state might need or deserve for these various things you need an accurate count of the population as a whole, not just the full-fledged citizens.

Also keep in mind that part of the reason why it's total people, and not just citizens is because way back in the day southern states wanted their slaves to count as people even though they couldn't vote. They also had to account for women and non-property owners even though they couldn't vote.
Click to expand...

Then why does the Constitution specifically exclude "Indians" (now a days called Native Americans)? As I recall they lived in America, but were not considered citizens of America.
 
JacksinPA said:
They would in 2020 if Trump gets his way. You have to wonder what the real reasons are for suddenly putting the citizenship question back in.

Scholars are concerned that most illegals will simply not answer this question & as a result their district will be undercounted.
Click to expand...

Paranoid much?
 
Renae said:
Served aboard the USS Inchon.

Thing is, teh 3/5ths compromise was to do with limiting the South's ability to continue slavery, you're misuing that time period. The SLAVES had no representatives.
Click to expand...

Ah, that's right. Blue Navy.

It was both. I'm not misusing it. It was used to limit the South's ability by the anti-slavery piece, as you stated. But the much larger piece (Slave Power) was about giving power to the South. It gave the South greater representation, by both the South and the Northern Democrats, and eventually it led to a Civil War in order to crack that power hold apart. For the Slave Power, bodies mattered for some seventy-years, and the three-fifths rule mattered to the political power.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Paranoid much?
Click to expand...

No but considering Trump's hysteria over immigration, I have to be curious as to the real reasons for putting this question back in after 78 years.
 
MrWonka said:
Because that's exactly what the constitution says. It says the census is supposed to count the people it says nothing about citizenship.

The census is focused on determining the number of people. They need to know the number of people in each state whether they are full-fledged citizens or not because the number of people in the state determines the influence that state should have in Congress.

Contrary to popular belief non-citizens usually pay taxes of some sort. They also use many of the utilities that the state provides like roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police, fire departments. So when determining the amount of funding a state might need or deserve for these various things you need an accurate count of the population as a whole, not just the full-fledged citizens.

Also keep in mind that part of the reason why it's total people, and not just citizens is because way back in the day southern states wanted their slaves to count as people even though they couldn't vote. They also had to account for women and non-property owners even though they couldn't vote.
Click to expand...

Non-citizen does not equal illegal. I don't want ILLEGALS taking the census as I don't believe they should be counted. I have absolutely no problem with anyone here legally taking it.
 
JacksinPA said:
No but considering Trump's hysteria over immigration, I have to be curious as to the real reasons for putting this question back in after 78 years.
Click to expand...

To get rid of illegals.
 
MSgt said:
Ah, that's right. Blue Navy.

It was both. I'm not misusing it. It was used to limit the South's ability by the anti-slavery piece, as you stated. But the much larger piece (Slave Power) was about giving power to the South. It gave the South greater representation, by both the South and the Northern Democrats, and eventually it led to a Civil War in order to crack that power hold apart. For the Slave Power, bodies mattered for some seventy-years, and the three-fifths rule mattered to the political power.
Click to expand...

They had to, it wa a compromise to prevent the southern states from leaving the Union at the time, but placed the seeds for the end of Slavery. Name one representative at that time who represented the slaves of the South?
 
JacksinPA said:
Pretty obvious, right? Mass deportations. Midnight roundups.
Click to expand...

In 1940 it was to identify people of German & Japanese citizenship or birth. Then for 78 years it was not a problem. Now under Trump it is a problem.

I looked at volunteering to be an enumerator during a past census. They have classes that they have to attend. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to see the 'special' instructions they might get: does the family look Latino? Middle Eastern? Speak with foreign accent or no English?
 
Renae said:
They had to, it wa a compromise to prevent the southern states from leaving the Union at the time, but placed the seeds for the end of Slavery. Name one representative at that time who represented the slaves of the South?
Click to expand...

No one did. They represented Master, who presented "bodies" worthy of further representation, which created the Slave Power held by the South and the North. It not only preserved the South's economy and life style, but constantly threatened pushing slavery further West with every new territory or state. The Civil War was the crescendo to breaking this political hold.

You aren't arguing a falsehood. You are correct. This is historically known as the "Three-Fifths Compromise" for a reason. But there's a more accurate truth here than a benevolent Republican struggle to compromise in order to eventually destroy slavery. There is the Democrat side that established the existence of "body" as an important aspect of representation.
 
MSgt said:
No one did. They represented Master, who presented "bodies" worthy of further representation, which created the Slave Power held by the South and the North. It not only preserved the South's economy and life style, but constantly threatened pushing slavery further West with every new territory or state. The Civil War was the crescendo to breaking this political hold.

You aren't arguing a falsehood. You are correct. This is historically known as the "Three-Fifths Compromise" for a reason. But there's a more accurate truth here than a benevolent Republican struggle to compromise in order to eventually destroy slavery. There is the Democrat side that established the existence of "body" as an important aspect of representation.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, slaves were here legally, even if only counted as "3/5ths", illegally here doesn't count and to accord a law breaker with representation is to me, madness.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Doesnt say it cant be asked.
Click to expand...

But if asking it suppresses the willingness of people to answer, then asking it is an obstacle to getting an accurate population count.

The primary goal is to get an accurate population count.

Extraneous things which interfere with that primary goal may violate the constitutional imperative.
 
Amelia said:
But if asking it suppresses the willingness of people to answer, then asking it is an obstacle to getting an accurate population count.

The primary goal is to get an accurate population count.

Extraneous things which interfere with that primary goal may violate the constitutional imperative.
Click to expand...
Potentially, but I remain skeptical that that is going to sway the Courts.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Amelia said:
But if asking it suppresses the willingness of people to answer, then asking it is an obstacle to getting an accurate population count.

The primary goal is to get an accurate population count.

Extraneous things which interfere with that primary goal may violate the constitutional imperative.
Click to expand...

Don't ask if they're a citizen for a census count, and don't require legal ID to vote.

The agenda is pretty clear.
 
JacksinPA said:
Uh... Mass deportations? Like the West Coast Japanese during WWII, round them up & put them in Alex Jones' FEMA Camps? With Trump in charge, who the hell knows what uses they would put that data to use for.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is another case where Trump's big mouth will be used against him in a court of law and may lead to an injunction. Trump and his administration have caused a heightened state of fear. This may be reasonably assumed to have a suppressive effect on the number of people willing to be counted. Neither the people nor the court can trust assurances from the Trump administration that they won't attempt to make illicit use of the census information.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Doesnt say it cant be asked.
Click to expand...
MrWonka said:
But if it may result in a less than accurate count it does.

Imagine a world where we managed to actually pass a ban on weapons like the AR-15, and having liberals add a question to the census asking if you have any in your home. The fear of NRA types worried the government was watching them and coming for their hidden weapons might prevent them from filling out the forms entirely.

Or imagine adding a question to the census about whether or not you keep any illegal drugs in your home. Do you answer yes, and worry about the DEA coming to your house, or do you answer no and worry about lying on the census. Or do you just not take the census.

When you ask a direct question like this to the FBI or any secretive agency their standard reply is that they can neither confirm nor deny whatever you're asking. The reason is that information can be gleaned whether they answer in the positive or negative.
Click to expand...


Good example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom