• 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!

Trump aims to stop counting of illegal migrants in redrawing of U.S. voting maps

Grand Mal said:
There is none. You'll have to find a reason for outrage somewhere else.

Damn, but rightists need to have every simple thing explained over and over.
Click to expand...

Lol it was a rhetorical question, Grand Mal. I wasn’t asking for your input or an explanation.
 
Last edited:
TheDoctorWasIn said:
As far as I understand, the Executive branch has nothing to do with apportionment.

I don't even think it'll need to go to court.
Click to expand...

Possibly, trump doesn't care it was just a show for the cult.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
So has voters showing up with ID, more secure method.
Click to expand...


Really, here in Wisconsin after republicans refused to allow mail in voting we had a cluster ****, a and around 75 new trump virus cases directly from the election along with untold cases caused by those.

Why do you want people to risk me heir lives to vote?

When we have a safer simpler method?!?
 
Felis Leo said:
Why is it "blatantly unconstitutional" BlueTex?
Click to expand...
Plain reading of Article 1, Section 2, amended by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, reads "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State". "Whole number of persons" includes people without legal status by definition, as someone without legal status remains a person. Supreme Court precedent has also been very clear that all persons, not just citizens, are to be counted.

Forget permanent illegal immigrants for a moment. If a particular state has millions of non-citizen workers temporarily residing in it, why should they be apportioned more congressional representatives?
Click to expand...
According to the Census, citizens of foreign countries who are living in the United States should be counted at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of time. Citizens of foreign countries who are temporarily visiting the United States on vacation or business on April 1, 2020, should not be counted.
 
Barnacle said:
What would be the benefit for a district to show an increased population count?
Click to expand...

Equal representation... The representatives of a district represent ALL the persons of the district....
 
bricklayer said:
That's the point; there should be. Trump is not eliminating them from the count; he's just not including them with actual citizens.
Click to expand...


A census counts bodies, not citizens.

How is this so complicated for cultists?!??
 
BlueTex said:
Equal representation... The representatives of a district represent ALL the persons of the district....
Click to expand...


And therein lies one of the problems: US representatives are elected by US citizens to represent US citizens' interests ... not the interests of guest workers, green card holders or illegals.
So, it doesn't matter whether that district has 1/5 (or whatever) non US citizens ... they are not entitled to be represented by US representatives for the simple fact that they are subjects of another country.
 
The Constitution is crystal clear it wanted a count of everyone. It did not matter if they could vote. As a few posters have pointed out, women couldn't vote, neither could men who didn't own property, and they are counted on every census. The census was as much to determine how much tax each state would pay to the federal government as it was apportionment to the House of Representatives. That's why the 3/5 Rule. The Southern gentlemen considered their slaves property, not people, and therefore they didn't want slaves counted--they had a lot of them and didn't want to pay higher taxes because of all that "property."

The census was never meant to determine how many people could vote. If you wanted to make that change today, you would also have to weed out everyone who has been deemed mentally incompetent or has lost their right to vote due to incarceration or prior felonies. And of course, all minors and immigrants with Permanent Status who have chosen not to become citizens. I haven't heard anyone talking about that. It's just another way to target illegals, make a big stink over them.

Places like Los Angeles with high illegal immigrant numbers still have all those people living there, using the city water and electricity and ER's and housing and roads....we need to know how many people are here. Period.
 
Barnacle said:
And therein lies one of the problems: US representatives are elected by US citizens to represent US citizens' interests ... not the interests of guest workers, green card holders or illegals.
So, it doesn't matter whether that district has 1/5 (or whatever) non US citizens ... they are not entitled to be represented by US representatives for the simple fact that they are subjects of another country.
Click to expand...

And your position is not supported by law or supreme court precedence...
 
MaryP said:
The Constitution is crystal clear it wanted a count of everyone. It did not matter if they could vote. As a few posters have pointed out, women couldn't vote, neither could men who didn't own property, and they are counted on every census. The census was as much to determine how much tax each state would pay to the federal government as it was apportionment to the House of Representatives. That's why the 3/5 Rule. The Southern gentlemen considered their slaves property, not people, and therefore they didn't want slaves counted--they had a lot of them and didn't want to pay higher taxes because of all that "property."

The census was never meant to determine how many people could vote. If you wanted to make that change today, you would also have to weed out everyone who has been deemed mentally incompetent or has lost their right to vote due to incarceration or prior felonies. And of course, all minors and immigrants with Permanent Status who have chosen not to become citizens. I haven't heard anyone talking about that. It's just another way to target illegals, make a big stink over them.

Places like Los Angeles with high illegal immigrant numbers still have all those people living there, using the city water and electricity and ER's and housing and roads....we need to know how many people are here. Period.
Click to expand...

And many, many of those who can't vote also pay taxes...
 
GDViking said:
A census counts bodies, not citizens.

How is this so complicated for cultists?!??
Click to expand...


Those "bodies" account for extra representatives and increased federal funding. Skewing the numbers by including illegals that have no right to be here in the first place disenfranchises US citizen/locations that are not "protecting" illegals.

In other words, by using illegals, democrats can increase the number of house representatives for predominantly blue states.

Of course you would agree to that. :lol:
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol it was a rhetorical question, Grand Mal. I wasn’t asking for your input or an explanation.
Click to expand...

Rhetorical how? What was the point you were attempting to make? I answered your 'what is the argument in favour...' question with "There is none." That would seem to me to satisfy your rhetoric.
Just posting here is inviting input. You'll learn how this all works as you go along.
 
Barnacle said:
Those "bodies" account for extra representatives and increased federal funding. Skewing the numbers by including illegals that have no right to be here in the first place disenfranchises US citizen/locations that are not "protecting" illegals.

In other words, by using illegals, democrats can increase the number of house representatives for predominantly blue states.

Of course you would agree to that. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's not rocket science. Give your head a shake. The federal government needs to know how many people live in America. They need to know how many illegal immigrants there are.
How can you possibly be opposed to counting how many people live in your country? Do you really think the government doesn't need to know this? Go ahead, quibble about what they do with the information but it's just ridiculous to say they shouldn't do a census.
 
BlueTex said:
And your position is not supported by law or supreme court precedence...
Click to expand...


If our laws were "obeyed"(?) as they are written, that illegal wouldn't be here and therefore would not be counted in the census.

Thanks to the liberal idiots, laws are ignored and US judges have become activists for foreign subjects.
 
Barnacle said:
If our laws were "obeyed"(?) as they are written, that illegal wouldn't be here and therefore would not be counted in the census.

Thanks to the liberal idiots, laws are ignored and US judges have become activists for foreign subjects.
Click to expand...

"Undocumented" immigrants are a 20th century creation and did not even exist when the constitution was written... :2razz:
 
Grand Mal said:
It's not rocket science. Give your head a shake. The federal government needs to know how many people live in America. They need to know how many illegal immigrants there are.
How can you possibly be opposed to counting how many people live in your country? Do you really think the government doesn't need to know this? Go ahead, quibble about what they do with the information but it's just ridiculous to say they shouldn't do a census.
Click to expand...


If that were the case, why did the Supreme Court deny the citizenship question in the census and the liberals nearly pissed themselves with joy about that ruling?!?
 
BlueTex said:
"Undocumented" immigrants are a 20th century creation and did not even exist when the constitution was written... :2razz:
Click to expand...


What's that got to do with illegals who, according to our laws, shouldn't even be here in the first place?!?
 
Barnacle said:
What's that got to do with illegals who, according to our laws, shouldn't even be here in the first place?!?
Click to expand...

According to our laws, but not according to the Constitution regarding the census.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom