- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The Constitution.
Go on
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:39 pm to member12
quote:
Should illegal immigrants be counted on the census at all?
What does the Constitution say?
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:39 pm to member12
Count them, then subtract that number from the Dem votes cast in every election. 
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:39 pm to member12
No, they should not be counted on the census. Draw lines based on where citizens live.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:40 pm to member12
Yes, they should be counted. As Illegals.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:41 pm to member12
quote:Should not be counted. Census is for legal citizens.
Should illegal immigrants be counted on the census at all? Or should they be counted as "undocumented"?
quote:US citizens live. State electoral votes and house representation is based on population. States that freely invite illegals to live there should not be rewarded with more influence.
When we redistrict in 2021, should the decisions be made on where US citizens live or where all people live? If so, why?
The census and elections are for LEGAL citizens. This is not difficult.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:44 pm to Bard
quote:If this were the case, the southern half of the United States would never get ratified the Constitution in 1789.
Thus districts are carved out to represent citizens, not total population.
Your proposal certainly makes sense, but it is not what they wrote.
This post was edited on 6/12/19 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:45 pm to member12
Id do it just to know how many actual illegal immigrants are here
Posted on 6/12/19 at 2:48 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If this were the case, the southern half of the United States would never get ratified the Constitution in 1789.
Well frick.
That means they never had to do that secession thing in the first place.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:01 pm to TBoy
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states, in pertinent part:
The Constitution requires the counting of all "free persons." The drafters could have said "citizens." The drafters certainly knew the difference. They made a distinction between "free persons" and persons who were not free (meaning slaves) but they did not make a distinction between citizens and persons who reside here who are not citizens. There is no rational argument that a non-status alien living within a state is not a "free person."
This right wing argument that the census is or should
be restricted to "citizens" is typical right wing hogwash. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for it. The Constitution says what it says.
quote:
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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
The Constitution requires the counting of all "free persons." The drafters could have said "citizens." The drafters certainly knew the difference. They made a distinction between "free persons" and persons who were not free (meaning slaves) but they did not make a distinction between citizens and persons who reside here who are not citizens. There is no rational argument that a non-status alien living within a state is not a "free person."
This right wing argument that the census is or should
be restricted to "citizens" is typical right wing hogwash. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for it. The Constitution says what it says.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If this were the case, the southern half of the United States would never get ratified the Constitution in 1789.
The original intent was representation of US citizens. The 3/5 rule was a compromise with southern states in order to avoid onerous taxation). This was amended out with the 2nd section of the 14th Amendment (and thus why I mentioned it instead of trying an arguement of original-intent-despite-3/5).
This post was edited on 6/12/19 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:03 pm to member12
Yes. Right there in the "People to deport" category in the report.
Count every one.
Count every one.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:05 pm to jchamil
quote:it really is not complex
Go on
quote:The word “ Citizen” is not used in the context of any of these statements.
Actual Enumeration. ...
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.
There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of reasons to count everyone. There are certainly valid arguments to be made as to why they should not be included for purposes of apportionment.
We haven’t had an amendment in a while. Propose one.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:05 pm to Bard
quote:
The original intent was representation of US citizens.
No it wasn't and the language provides you with no support whatsoever.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:06 pm to TBoy
quote:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Which has been amended by the 2nd section of the 14th Amendment as well as the 19th and 26th Amendments.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:06 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:07 pm to TBoy
quote:
No it wasn't and the language provides you with no support whatsoever.
Except where it specifically says "citizen".
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:09 pm to member12
Yes so we know where they are to get their asses out
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:09 pm to TBoy
quote:I have seen the argument that the drafters intent of the word “Citizen“ and the word “person“ to be synonyms. They are not used as synonyms anywhere in the entire document.
The Constitution requires the counting of all "free persons." The drafters could have said "citizens." The drafters certainly knew the difference.
There are certainly places where the constitution is ambiguous. This just is not one of those places. Anyone confused on this issue should recuse himself from all further constitutional discussion.
Page 2 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News