On September 10, a 3-judge U.S. District Court issued an 82-page opinion, determining that President Trump’s order not to include non-citizens in the Census count for reapportionment purposes is unconstitutional. The presidential order had been promulgated in July 2020. State of New York v Trump, s.d., 1:20cv-5770.
The Fourteenth Amendment, section two, says, “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.”
PERMANENT/LEGAL RESIDENTS VS TEMPORARY/ILLEGAL RESIDENTS.
—
TOO MANY 2020 MORONS TO COUNT.
PERMANENT/LEGAL USA/FOREIGN CITIZENS/RESIDENTS VS TEMPORARY/ILLEGAL RESIDENTS.
—
TOO MANY 2020 MORONS TO COUNT.
SCOTUS on 24/7 emergency alert ??? — even Sat/Sun stuff
If anyone has lived in a place for at least a year, then they should be able to vote. It doesn’t matter to me if they are a legal resident or an undocumented person.
And since I think legal and illegal aliens should be able to vote it goes without saying that I think they should be counted in the Census.
Robert, why do you think that non-citizens, including people who are in the country illegally, should be able to vote? This is an insane thing to support, in my opinion.
If we both owned units in the same condominium complex, and the condominium association were to have an election, would you advocate that people who did mot own units in the condominium association should be able to vote in this election, including people who sneaked into the condominium association against the rules?
Do you think that everyone, including non-citizens, and including people who are in the country illegally, voting is more likely to expand liberty, or detract from liberty, and on what data do you base your answer?
What is the point of citizenship if non-citizens can vote?
American Indians were not counted as American citizens at the time this was passed. Given that American Indians were not counted for the purpose of apportioning districts for the US House of Representatives, due to American Indians not having American citizenship at the time, why would non-citizens be counted today for the purpose of apportioning US House districts? This sounds to me like a clear plot by the left to get more congressional districts in areas that are heavily Democrat so they can elect more socialist gun grabbers to the US House of Representatives. They are literally importing people to rig the outcomes of elections in their favor, including their own primaries. Sounds like a plot to destroy what is left of the US Constitution, and to replace it with totalitarian globalist socialism to me. Welcome to the New World Order.
American Indians were not counted in the census because they were specifically excluded, not because they weren’t citizens. Non citizens have always been counted in the census whether legal or “illegal”.
For example all of my ancestors came here as undocumented immigrants and they appear on every census after they arrived
The court ruled on the issue of illegal aliens. Not “non-citizens”. The Census has interpreted “in” as usually resident.
Can an alien on a tourist visa, who has overstayed his permission to visit, and evaded deportation be considered resident?
American Indians were not granted American citizenship until decades later.
How do you know that your ancestors came here as undocumented immigrants? When did they come here? Where were they from?
Some of my ancestors were in the USA before the country was founded. I had Scottish and English ancestors who fought as revolutionaries in the American Revolution. I had French ancestors who were in French Louisiana territory who became American citizens after the Louisiana purchase. I had Irish ancestors who came here in the 1870’s or 1880’s, although they went to England first, then came here. They came through Ellis Island, and I know that as a fact because I found it online. I also had an ancestor from Belgium (Flemish region, which is Belgian Dutch), and one from Chile, both of whom came in the early 1900’s, and both of whom came through Ellis Island, and I know this as a fact since I also found it online. So my ancestors who were not here at the country’s founding all came here and gained citizenship in compliance with the laws at the time. There was also no welfare state back in those days.
@RS,
How would an undocumented alien document that they have lived in a city, state, etc. For one year? For that matter, how would you document your residence?
Jim, I would say no to your question. People who are in the country illegally, or who are here on tourist or work VISAS clearly should NOT be counted for the purpose of apportioning US House districts, nor should any offspring they may have while here.
@Andy all of my ancestors came over before 1880, the decade the first immigration laws were passed
See: “Chinese Exclusion Act”
Everyone that came over before that was by definition “undocumented” as there were no official government forms
Anyone who argues against counting everyone besides Indians is by definition going against the literal word of the Constitution.
So none of your ancestors went through Ellis Island, or any other legal port of entry?
No, none of them did as there were no “illegal” points of entry for the first 100 years of our country
The US Constitution grants the federal government power over the enforcement of the borders, as well as the entry of foreign nationals, as well as immigration and naturalization. See the “Law of Nations” phrase, as well as the phrases about the naturalization of foreigners, and “repelling invasions”. If a peeson entered the country illegally, or entered legally, but overstayed a VISA, they are in violation of the “Law of Nations,” and should therefore NOT be counted for the purpose of apportioning US House districts. Also, guven that government wealth redistribution programs are unconstitutional, any foreign national who entered the country legally, but who came in as a part of a government welfare program, such as The Refugee Resettlement Act, or who is otherwise a public charge (as in they are recipients of government welfare programs, even though they did not enter the country as a part of such a program), should also be excluded from being counted in order to apportion US House districts.
Immigration is mentioned ZERO times in the constitution and yes they have control over repelling foreign armies. There is absolutely nothing in there about personal migration.
Welfare has nothing to do with migration and people only bring it up to deflect and excuse xenophobic policies. If you want to get rid of the welfare state, great do that, but stop using it as a pretense for exclusion
Naturalization ≠ Immigration
ILLEGAL persons = INVADERS — armed or un-armed.
—
Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; ***
—
Art. I, Sec. 10, para. 3. No State shall *** engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
—
Art. IV, Sec. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
—
Try to go / be ILLEGALLY in Russia or China and see what happens.
—
RED Donkey communists LOVE having a ZILLION illegal INVADERS = more future RED Donkey communist voters — esp after being made *legal* via USA Congress gerrymander laws / Prez pardons / Prez Exec Ords.
See 2016 and 2018 FEC election stats.
USA Rep gerrymander districts with lowest vote TOTALS in SW States with most INVADERS who got counted in 2010 Census.
—-
Various LEGAL **permanent** foreign persons residing in the USA via treaties / laws — many via treaties / laws adding land areas to USA regime —
1783 Brit Peace Treaty, 1803 LA Purchase, etc. — often given option to become USA Citizens quicker than via naturalization laws – olde 5 years residence.
Brandon, the “Law of Nations” is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the US Constitution, and if you look up The Law of Nations, you will see that it does in fact include regulating immigration. This was clearly understood by people back in those days.
Also, if the founders of this country meant for everyone in the world to be able to come here, why is it that one of the first laws passed after the US Constitution went into effect was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which said that only “free white persons of good character” could be granted American citizenship? So one of the first laws passed was clearly discriminatory in nature. Given the lack of transportation options for most people in the world outside Europe, it really was not much of an issue until a significant number of Chinese started popping up, and the response was to ban them with the passage of The Chinese Exclusion Act. If one thinks this sounds mean, ask yourself how many Europeans are in China today? The people at the time were simply doing the same thing as is done in China, and most of the rest of the world.
This was NEVER a country where just anyone could show up and be granted citizenship. The founders would have laughed at such a suggestion.
Again, citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with immigration. Also you can’t cite another document as the basis for granting the federal government powers. the 10th amendment clearly states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So it would actually be more constitutional for states to control who migrates through their borders, yet so many conservatives were up in arms when states started to do that to help control the pandemic.
Please provide citations or quotes from the constitution regarding the other document superseding the rest of the articles/ammendments
The only time the “Law of Nations” is mentioned is in Article 1, Section 8 giving congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;” So unless these undocumented immigrants were pirates it has no bearing on this.
1-8-3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations – power about immigrants / immigration
totally separate from
1-8-4 To establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization
Pirates – MAJOR problem due to wars between Europe regimes to 1815 – Napoleon Waterloo.
After 1815, all major navy powers wiped out pirate gangs –
https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/pirate-interdiction.html
Cruise into pirate base – blow it to hell
arrest any survivors often via USA Marines – carry to USA port – Trial by jury – guilty – Hang them High.
See USA 1790 Crimes Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis
PIRATES — lower than killer dictators.
Thus – USA Marine Corp Hymn — part –
To the Shores of Tripoli = early 1800s – USA Navy/Marines against Tripoli pirates.
Senior USA Navy folks in 1861-1865 Civil War I had often been in pirate actions when younger – used to heavy combat.
Since the Census is for representation, why should we count people who are here illegally? Maybe we should have two numbers: the total number and the citizens, who are actually entitled to vote.
@Tim, by that definition no minors should be counted and those who have lost the right to vote (felons in some states) should also be excluded
@Tim,
The Constitution says that Representatives shall be chosen by the people of each state, but then defines the choosers (electors) as persons qualified to vote for the larger branch of the state legislature.
If election by districts can be said to constitute election by the people of a state, then it is only logical that each district should have about the same number of electors, not persons.
Imagine a state with 1,000,000 electors, and 10 representatives. Then 100,000 electors based on geographical location should elect each representative.
Apportionment of representatives is independent of how they are elected.
Brandon, The Laws of Nations IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE US CONSTITUTION. Is is not so much me referencing it, it is the FOUNDING FATHERS who INCLUDED it in the US Constitution.
Part of The Law of Nations is regulating borders and immigration. This is CLEARLY a function which was delegated to the federal (ie-national) government.
So-called *law of nations* =
UN-written *common law* for *civilized* nations —
subject to being TOTALLY wiped out by written treaties and laws.
Olde part of such *law of nations* the LAW in olde cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction — on *High Seas* — ship collisions, cargo, etc.
—
As with olde Brit *common law* in 1776 States —
Now only olde common law torts in most States.
All other stuff in writing —
crimes
criminal procedure
most torts
civil procedure
—–
The USA govt is a FEDERAL govt with limited legis, exec and judic powers —
NOT a *national* govt. 9 and 10 Amdts if nothing else.
BUT States now almost DEAD due to SCOTUS perversions of 1-8-1 general welfare cl (since 1936) and 1-8-3 interstate commerce cl. [since 1870s)