re: Should Illegal Aliens count towards congressional representation?

quote:

---

when the right to vote ... is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... , the basis of representation therein shall be reduced ....

---

You quote the 14th, yet completely ignore the phrase that completely guts your argument. It amazes me that Buckeye has not addressed that oversight on your part.

The total number of “persons” shall be counted, and that number shall be reduced by the number of “citizens” (NOT “persons”) who fit this description.

AGAIN, sometimes we must just ACCEPT that it does not say what we want it to say. Torturing the language to attain our desired results is Judicial Activism at its very worst.

While I will agree illegal immigrants should not be counted towards representation, the rub is that once they have children in the US, the children are US citizens.

So the one fallacy with Trump’s plan is that you are going to find just as many anchor babies that are here as there are illegal immigrants.

So the constitution would need to end birthright citizenship by an illegal immigrant.

Persons should be counted for the purposes of apportionment. Not only is that constitutionally correct but once one takes emotion out of it I think it's easily defensible in terms of resource use and other factors

but they also absolutely should be counted in their own category. I mean if we are going to take the time to do a census and we're going to figure out how many black people white people Asian people women and children etc etc etc we're going to have, I see no real issue would also figuring out how many actual citizens vs. Illegals we have.

And again this is easily defensible in terms of understanding the real impact illegals are having on America

And the left can't have it both ways. They can't with one side of their mouth say that illegals don't cost us money and then out of the other side of their mouth say they have to be counted for apportionment because of the resources they use

I'm not sure it should even be changed constitutionally

I kind of accept the arguments for why they should be counted for apportionment

I just think it's absurd that we have Americans arguing that we shouldn't count how many of them there are specifically

quote:

---

MOST of that argument can be reduced to fiscal issues, so I see it as a matter that should be addressed by Congress each Session. It just seems logical that apportionment should be tied to the number of voters and soon-to-be voters

---

I guess I'm conflicted on this one because preventing immigration is a federal issue but at the same time as some have pointed out some states are complicit in road blocking the Fed.

To be sure the danger of including illegals when apportioning is that even if they can't vote they certainly can have influence over those Representatives and then you end up with de-facto foreign Representatives.

Maybe we need an illegals 3/5ths compromise!!!

I live in a foreign country legally and it is incomprehensible to me that people think that illegal immigrants or even people living in the US legally should be counted in a census for the purpose of representation. I understand why the Democrats want to do it ,but it is sinister and wrong. In the country I live of course I have rights ,but I can not and should not have be allowed to vote and take part in the political process nor do I deserve representation. I do my part obey the laws, can speak enough of the language (working at getting better), and understand that I am allowed to live here under those conditions. I hope the work around with Trump'so new EO works.

quote:

---

To be sure the danger of including illegals when apportioning is that even if they can't vote

---

But this is the ultimate goal of the DEMOCRAT party - you can be sure that this mythological "comprehensive immigration reform" ideal that the DEMs always point toward contains some "pathway to citizenship" for all illegals. There is nothing else that explains their insane intransigence on this issue.

quote:

---

they certainly can have influence over those Representatives and then you end up with de-facto foreign Representatives.

---

This is their temporary fall-back position.

I'd like to see some good ol' fashioned "Judicial Activism" here where we go back and define "persons" with the qualifier of "legally in residence" - otherwise we would have to count an invading army in our representation if they attacked us during a census year.

The concept of "here legally" was not really much of a consideration during the founding - since everyone was here by just walking or floating in. Nothing like an invasion of foreign born anti-American masses was - or could be - contemplated.

If the SCOTUS can find an umbra from a penumbra emanating from some non-existent, but presumed, "right to privacy" in order to legalize the murder of unborn babies for the convenience of a promiscuous mother, surely it could find an equally plausible "legal residency" requirement for the purpose of determining congressional apportionment.

but that might hurt someone's feelings.

quote:

---

No

---

quote:

---

Absolutely No.

---

quote:

---

Illegal Aliens

---

NO