- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Trump Poised To Try To Remove Noncitizens From Census
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:21 pm to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:21 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
refer to your statement - 'that would require an amendment'
What would they need to amend? The text and history of the Constitution are on their side in this discussion.
quote:
Why did you not recommend that the democrats write an amendment that clearly defines what they want in terms of citizenship requirements instead of re-interpreting ages old understanding of what is there now?
Because the text, USSC precedent, and history is on their side, currently.
quote:
surely your advice of "write an amendment" would equally apply to their position on the matter.
If you had common sense, you'd see that this makes no sense, as you're the one trying to change the Constittution.
0
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:22 pm to BugAC
quote:
Are you inferring that the word "untaxed" is merely an adjective and has no other meaning or implication?
The implication is what was stated earlier (and baked into the larger point): those Indians were not citizens, but were residing in states (technically).
The authors felt they were the one class who should be excluded from the census for representation purposes.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:24 pm to SlayTime
quote:
You tell us
I imagine it's because Indians, at that time, were one of the few populations clearly not American in terms of federal law. Until the 14A, determination of citizenship was largely left up to the individual states.
This concept of "illegal" didn't exist, especially for non-Indian populations.
That didn't really exist until the early 20th century when Congress started passing the first universal federal legislation on the issue.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:25 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
But in no way did the originators of birthright citizenship a hundred years later
Wong Kim Ark was 22 years later.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:25 pm to Night Vision
Funny how, even counting illegals, the Census Bureau still managed to frick up the 2020 count in favor of several blue states. Of course, they didn't publicize their "error" until after congressional reapportionment was complete. Whoopsie!
In typical GOP fashion, not one prominent GOP politician said a word. Just took it lying down like dogs.
In typical GOP fashion, not one prominent GOP politician said a word. Just took it lying down like dogs.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:33 pm to Night Vision
quote:
Some immigration researchers project that including noncitizens in the census count disproportionately benefits Democratic states with large illegal alien populations.
Ya think?
There’s a reason the Democrats fight like hell to bring illegal immigrants into the country (and fight like hell to keep them here).
Anyone who thinks it’s all simply out of the goodness and kindness of the Dems hearts ….is as foolish and naive as a human being can be.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 4:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are pretending to be a textualist when you are not. The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language in the 14A citizenship clause -- what does that mean? It has to mean something, because it is in the text. To support your position, you have to read it out of the text.
This post was edited on 6/27/25 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 6/27/25 at 4:30 pm to Tall Tiger
quote:
The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language in the 14A citizenship clause is a clear qualifier, and refers to the jurisdiction that a government has over that individual. It means there is no birthright citizenship for non-US citizens who come here, because the laws of their home country still apply to them.
Do the laws of the US not apply to them while here?
quote:
when I fly to Paris, I do not lose my status as a US citizen and being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If I am in Paris on April 15, I still have to file my US tax return at home. My home country does not lose jurisdiction over me because I went to another country.
You're also subject to the jurisdiction of France while in Paris.
quote:
You, like liberals, are reading the 14A without the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" qualifier, or are ascribing it some meaning outside of its text.
I am not. Wong Kim Ark does a very detailed textual-historical analysis of what the words meant at the time of writing. It is the current Supreme Court precedent that has already addressed this issue specifically.
quote:
And my point is that non-textualists, like you, are necessarily reading the 14A to provide a gap or loophole into which illegal immigrants
When the 14A was written, there was not a concept of "illegal immigrants" like we have today. That status was created by Congress, and Congress cannot override the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark applies to the situation today. Could the authors of WKA foresee this scenario? No, but that's not their job. If there is a societal change that necessitates a need to change the constitution, we have that process (the amendment process). Using courts to do this is "Living Constitution" leftist drivel.
quote:
But if there is a gap, I am confident the 14A drafters never would have agreed to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
"I am confident the authors of the 2A never would have agreed to grant the right to bear arms for semi-automatic rifles"
Posted on 6/27/25 at 4:49 pm to Night Vision
Didn’t the SCOTUS strike this down in 2020?
Posted on 6/27/25 at 4:51 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Yeah the number of illegal immigrants account for 19 house seats. This would cause CA /NY to lose about 4-5 each TX to lose 2-3 and other blue states all probably losing 1 each
Posted on 6/27/25 at 5:09 pm to AubieinNC2009
Florida? Georgia?
Not just a bunch of blue states:
California: 1.9 million
Texas: 1.6 million
Florida: 900,000
New York: 600,000
New Jersey: 450,000
Illinois: 400,000
Georgia: 350,000
North Carolina: 325,000
Washington: 300,000
Virginia: 275,000
Maryland: 275,000
Arizona: 250,000
Colorado: 160,000
Nevada: 190,000
Not just a bunch of blue states:
California: 1.9 million
Texas: 1.6 million
Florida: 900,000
New York: 600,000
New Jersey: 450,000
Illinois: 400,000
Georgia: 350,000
North Carolina: 325,000
Washington: 300,000
Virginia: 275,000
Maryland: 275,000
Arizona: 250,000
Colorado: 160,000
Nevada: 190,000
Posted on 6/27/25 at 5:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:100%
The Constitution has a method to adapt: the amendment process.
If the courts cannot get this right, there is a remedy.
Posted on 6/30/25 at 2:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So you want to let the DEMs have the power to overrule the 2A with an EO when they win the Presidency next time?
Nope. I want them to use the amendment process more often rather than play interpretation games all the time.
Posted on 6/30/25 at 2:40 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Back in the day some only counted for 3/5ths
Interesting comparison as I believe this was added to keep Democrat slave owners from tilting the legislative scale by counting their slaves.
And here we are 350 years later and they’re trying to do the same damn thing.
Posted on 6/30/25 at 2:45 pm to Night Vision
quote:
Trump Poised To Try To Remove Noncitizens From Census
OH MY GOD MAKE THIS HAPPEN
(and then watch how fast these blue states/cities stop caring about illegals
)This post was edited on 6/30/25 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 6/30/25 at 3:02 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
And here we are 350 years later and they’re trying to do the same damn thing.
Posted on 6/30/25 at 3:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's almost assuredly going to be required.
I just looked and the 14A uses "citizens" 5 times and person(s) 5 times.
It's going to be very difficult to argue the writers of the 14A didn't understand the difference in "citizen" and "person".
At the time of the Constitution's ratification were women considered "citizens"?
Likewise, were women "citizens" at the time of the 14th's passage?
I assume women were always counted in the Census and for apportionment purposes.
Similarly, non-free-blacks were not "citizens" - at least in some sense until the passage of the 14th, Yet, very clearly, they were counted for apportionment purposes, even if only at a 3/5 rate.
I think that is a problem for the argument that apportionment be based only on citizenship numbers, even though I agree that is the way it should be.
Posted on 6/30/25 at 3:32 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
Non-citizens were a part of the census?
The census takers weren’t allowed to ask if they were citizens or not.
Posted on 6/30/25 at 3:35 pm to Nikki_T
quote:
The census takers weren’t allowed to ask if they were citizens or not.
We know, though, that such a question is not unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled on that at the end of Trump's first term.
Page 7 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News