- 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
re: Should illegal immigrants be counted on the census?
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:13 pm to Bard
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:13 pm to Bard
quote:
Which has been amended by the 2nd section of the 14th Amendment as well as the 19th and 26th Amendments.
None of those changed the quoted language above. Those Amendments pertain to citizenship rights and voting rights for women and 18 year olds. Nothing in any of those Amendments makes any change whatsoever in the census provision.
You could have cited the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery, but that didn't change the census provision either. All it did was make it against the law of the land for there to be slaves, a.k.a persons who are not free. That doesn't change the census provision. it merely reduces to zero the population of people counted as three fifths.
There has been no amendment to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
0
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:13 pm to member12
No.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:13 pm to FlexDawg
Did they count Indians?
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:14 pm to TBoy
quote:
three fifths of all other Persons
Could this also be reference to the number of immigrants that were not citizens at the time, but who are here legally. Considering the time it was written, and there was a vast number of people migrating to the US, they may not have thought of the exploited illegal immigration movement that has been going on for some time.
And, if we were to take snippets of the constitution and apply it to today's terms, that could get dangerous when you consider the fact that they did not consider segments of the population that did not pay taxes as equals to those that do pay taxes.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:19 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
Could this also be reference to the number of immigrants that were not citizens at the time, but who are here legally. Considering the time it was written, and there was a vast number of people migrating to the US, they may not have thought of the exploited illegal immigration movement that has been going on for some time.
I think you have a subplot for right wing fan fiction. Maybe Trump can appear through time travel at the Constitutional Convention and impose tariffs on trade with England or something like that. Let us know when you have something down on paper.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:19 pm to member12
quote:
US citizens
This is the key phrase that needs to be used. However, "US residents" seems to be used by the Dems in order to make their arguments more viable. Maybe it's time the SC make a ruling of clarification.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:20 pm to member12
No. And if it is currently ok to count the invaders it should be changed
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:21 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:What? Immigration in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was negligible.
Could this also be reference to the number of immigrants that were not citizens at the time, but who are here legally. Considering the time it was written, and there was a vast number of people migrating to the US, they may not have thought of the exploited illegal immigration movement that has been going on for some time.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:23 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
However, "US residents" seems to be used by the Dems in order to make their arguments more viable.
Actually the term used in the Constitution is "person." If that is a left leaning term to you, you have a problem with basic language. We count all "persons."
Unfortunately that even includes right wingers who spout fake stuff in threads on the Poli Board.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:26 pm to TBoy
quote:Did they count pregnant women twice?
Actually the term used in the Constitution is "person."
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Did they count pregnant women twice?
I know that was meant as a joke, but in states where they have legislatively defined a fetus as a "person," that is actually a fascinating question. Someone should write a law review article about the unintended consequence of fetal personage.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:34 pm to Bard
quote:
Except where it specifically says "citizen".
Perhaps you can highlight or underline for us the use of the term "citizen" in the census provision.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:36 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
They should not be counted at all.
This is where I’m at. If we allow allocation of resources based on illegal population, we only pour gas on the flame.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:38 pm to TBoy
Pretty sure that means the Founders didn’t believe fetuses held legal personhood
*engages ducking countermeasures*
*engages ducking countermeasures*
Posted on 6/12/19 at 3:46 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
This is where I’m at. If we allow allocation of resources based on illegal population, we only pour gas on the flame.
If people want to cater to illegal immigrants, they should shoulder that burden as much as possible, they shouldn't be rewarded for it with more representation at a national level. It makes no sense.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 5:22 pm to TBoy
quote:quote:
The original intent was representation of US citizens.
No it wasn't and the language provides you with no support whatsoever.
On that you are correct. After some digging around I found the original text:
quote:
expenses shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the whole number of white and other free inhabitants, of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes in each state.
So originally it does appear that the census was to collect information about all peoples (except Indians) within the country.
As I stated earlier in the thread though, I believe they should be counted, but deliniated out when it comes to apportionment of Congressional districts and I believe the Constitution supports that stance.
This post was edited on 6/12/19 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 6/12/19 at 5:27 pm to PaperTiger
There are zero illegal immigrants. How ever there is a frick ton of Illegal Aliens.
Posted on 6/12/19 at 5:33 pm to member12
frick no
Posted on 6/12/19 at 6:15 pm to TBoy
quote:
What does the Constitution say?
It says "No".
Posted on 6/12/19 at 6:17 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If this were the case, the southern half of the United States would never get ratified the Constitution in 1789.
So...count 3 out of 5?
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News