Counting illegals is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL

28 June 2019 | Fightin Kentuckian

[fightin kentuckian]

The whole citizenship question is predicated on a much larger question: Do you count illegals for the apportionment of Representatives. Quite simply I say it’s unconstitutional for many reasons but the best reason is the constitution itself and the intent of the founding fathers. I wrote this to a lib friend of mine. Have a read and let me know what you think.

Honestly, do you really think that the founding fathers were in Philly, debating and drawing up the Constitution and B. Franklin says something like “What if we include illegal people for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives” and G. Washington, says “I fought the best army in the world and kicked it’s ass, and during that war we lost lots of American lives in order to create this new nation and you want to count people from other countries who have absolutely no loyalty to this country, and they take and don’t contribute, they are a burden to society, a burden that a young nation cannot bare unless it comes to ruin, and you want to count them for apportionment of Representatives....hmmm, yea, I kinda like that Benji, lets run with that.” And Hamilton says, “Effin A Benji, I’m with you. Lets count illegals for apportionment, I love the idea for the reasons George just laid out!”

You gotta be kidding me if you think counting illegals is constitutional, because if you do then you believe this scenario actually happened. hahahaha.

[Mr. Mohasky]

“Common sense in a world extremely lacking any, will be perceived and construed as an extreme point of view.” - JAD

[BenLurkin]

If it’s a matter of original intent as the poster suggests, they can be of some guidance.

[hanamizu]

They wouldn’t count illegals for the same reason given for not counting untaxed Indians.

---

Slaves weren’t citizens but they were counted (as 3/5ths). Taxed Indians were counted but I doubt they were citizens either. The fact of the matter is that the concept of large numbers of people slipping across the border would have never entered the minds of the Founders. We had a border with British Canada, and far to the west and south a border with an empty (except for a few traders and Indians) New Spain.

[Sequoyah101]

That is correct. They were a series of ARTICLES written to encourage adoption of the constitution and to address a number of political topics.

They were merely articles having absolutely no weight of law. The were very good articles though.

Look it up, they are historical articles. That is all.

[Hulka]

To include illegal aliens/non-citizens in the census count will inflate the number of House representatives per state.

In other words, demoncrats push for counting illegals because that would give states with illegal aliens more demoncrat House seats. . .no wonder demoncrats encourage illegals to come to the US. . .it gives demoncrats a way to get more House representatives.

Illegals will impeach a legitimate census count.

Census is to count citizens, not illegals.

[Sequoyah101]

They can be of some guidance as to intent but the have no legal weight. The Constitution is to stand alone as confusing as some people want to make it for their own benefit.

[bgill]

Oh, puleeze. They’re not counting illegals. What illegal is going to tell the truth about citizenship? This is just something they can aggravate Trump with.

[McGavin999]

Maybe we ought to file a lawsuit claiming our votes and representatiion is diluted by people who have no legal status. We don’t know who they are, if they will be here for years or days, we don’t know which country they owe their loyalty to.

Our future is being put in the hands of those who have no real stake in this country.

[1_Of_We]

I agree with you.

Also take not of the Apportionment Acts of 1911 and 1913 that limit the number of U.S. Representatives to 435.

Those Acts ‘amend’ the Constitutional mandate that simply states the number of Reps in each State shall not exceed 1 per 30,000 people.

That also seems to be UnConstitutional, like so many other ‘laws’.

[FewsOrange]

“Also take not of the Apportionment Acts of 1911 and 1913 that limit the number of U.S. Representatives to 435.

Those Acts ‘amend’ the Constitutional mandate that simply states the number of Reps in each State shall not exceed 1 per 30,000 people.”

No they don’t. After those acts the number of reps does not exceed 1 per 30,000 and hence do not contradict the constitution

[centurion316]

To include illegal aliens/non-citizens in the census count will inflate the number of House representatives per state.

Of course it will. Slaves were counted in the First Census and thereafter until slavery was abolished. The southern states insisted on this, and as a compromise, only 3/5 of the total count were included in the totals. In the 1870 Census, former slaves were counted in the same manner as free white persons were.

[libertylover]

Yup. All the “explanations” like “we count people, not citizens!” are crap; the two items were synonymous for the Founders.

Agreed. In those days counting the people and counting the citizens meant the same thing and explicitly saying so wasn't necessary. Other things were not explicitly stated either: abortion and homosexuality were so unthinkable that they thought there was no need to state anything about them.

Now, Democrats don't want to count the citizens because they sure as hell don't want people to know just how many noncitizens we have.

[Hulka]

The 3/5 count was to diminish the power of the slave-holding states. Slaves were citizens, not illegals. Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 made that clear. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Illegals have no right to be included in the census.

If illegals (non-citizens) are counted, imagine a massive push by illegals to vote, supported by demoncrats. Imagine illegals flooding the states before the election. Reward illegals by allowing them to vote, even though they have no right to be here.

[MMaschin]

That is NOT what the Court decided!

The Court decided that the Citizenship question was 100% Constitutional! The Court also decided that it was 100% lawful for the Secretary of Commerce to add the question!

The issue came with the APA (Administrative Procedure Act). The APA requires that Agencies provide a reason for policy changes. The reason for the policy change to add the Citizenship question was DOJ needed the numbers to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

The problem is that during discovery NY got a hold of emails from Secretary Ross as soon as he took over stating he wanted the question added and then having his people look for other agencies that could use the counts. It was obvious to the Court that he wanted to add the Citizenship question even before he knew DOJ could use the numbers.

So, because the reason behind changing the policy was pretextual (BS) Roberts sent it back saying it did not fulfill the APA requirement, so Commerce needs to specify the real reason.

The Court ruled -
1) the question IS Constitutional
2) the Secretary of Commerce is 100% able to add the question
3) included "“Relatedly, a court may not set aside an agency’s policymaking decision solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities.”

Roberts called BS on Ross's reason to add the Citizenship question, but he basically made it impossible for lower courts to block Ross from adding the question - AFTER he submits another reason for adding the question.

Commerce has said that they can meet a 10/31/19 deadline instead of the original 7/1/19 deadline and still have the question on the Census. It's almost certain that the question WILL be on the Census. I think Ross simply needs to tell the truth and say "we need the numbers because we may be required by law to exclude illegal immigrants from the numbers we provide for apportionment" (see Alabama v US Dept of Commerce

[Hulka]

They provide background behind citizenship, among all other Amendments.

[Hulka]

“Motor-voter” laws. . .

[centurion316]

Slaves were citizens, not illegals.

Sorry, slaves were property, not citizens. Citing an 1870 Amendment doesn't help your case, slavery was ended throughout the United States in 1865. You may not have heard.

[Hulka]

Civil War Amendments clarified Blacks status as citizens and voters

This thread wandered all over the place, nothing new to be said unless snark is part of an informative discussion.

[rustbucket]

The Federalist Papers were a series of advertisements/news articles written mainly by Jay and Adams to influence the ratification process of the newly written Constitution. They were meant to clarify questions that people had regarding the Constitution.

The authors of the Federalist Papers were Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.

[centurion316]

Blacks and Slaves are not synonymous terms and never have been since this country was founded. From 1775 until 1865, the United States included Free Blacks who were citizens and Chattel Slaves who were not. After 1865, there were no slaves in the United States

This thread is about who is counted by the Census and what the Constitution has to say about it. It may be wandering because some people may not understand the history of enumeration and how it has proceeded.