Posted on 06/28/2019 9:04:32 AM PDT by asinclair
I found on-line a PDF of the Year 2000 Census long form. Note Question 13 on page 4. For those of you unwilling to click on the link:
Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? [ ] Yes, born in the United States → Skip to 15a [ ] Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas [ ] Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents [ ] Yes, a U.S. citizen by naturalization [ ] No, not a citizen of the United States
I've not looked at the 2010 long form, but if the question is not there, I think it would be interesting for someone do do a FOIA request for all discussions as to why they left it off.
https://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d-61b.pdf
In 2010 there was no long form.
So, there’s precedence for including the question.
The big issue is that the long form is a research form, whereas its the entire census results that are used for apportioning Congressional Representatives.
I don’t know if the question of whether illegal aliens, or even guests on visas, constitute people that should be represented has ever been asked or answered. 3/5 is too much.
That’s the 2000 Census long form.
Perhaps Trump should just cite cost concerns and just use the old form.
https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questionnaire_Info.pdf
All the citizenship questions are missing; the rest of the questions appear to be there.
SCOUTUS ruled 5-4 that the Commerce department has the authority to ask the citizenship question, and that the question is not unconstitutional. Roberts’ objection is that the administration didn’t give a good enough justification for it, a patently ridiculous standard. Trump should just declare victory, print the question anyway, and tell SCOTUS to go pound sand.
Why don’t you make your links clickable rather than having
to copy and paste into a search engine?
I wonder how Kamala the ineligible answered that question?
Back President Trump’s effort to make certain the census form contains the citizenship question in it and no reference to race. But to the country of where the respondent is a citizen of if not an American citizen.
TIME TO END HYPHENATING AMERICANS
One thing the Mexican Constitution has that we should consider doing.Mexico has no hyphenated Mexicans. They prohibit any reference to race when they conduct a census or issue any means of identification, Where a photo id is not available physical description is needed skin color yes but not by race but by nationality..
By doing this Mexico has avoided “balkanizing”, creating fractional disputes in areas where a given group in one of its states is a majority or a minority. Plus it could play a significant part in shutting down the political playing off racial divisions between Americans by the Democrats.
According to the Mexican constitution Americans legally in Mexico get a 2nd class treatment. Besides being unable to vote one must also be a citizen to own land and Mexico is very restrictive about granting citizenship. Because of that a US citizen besides not being able to vote,and cannot have title in their name to any land property in Mexico. It’s time the US should consider making that reciprocal.
But Tulsi's mother was born in Indiana so she probably won't have a problem.
Depending on what you mean by represented, please consider the following.
In my opinion the excerpts below from the post-Civil War congressional record show that your question was asked and answered in the 19th century.
In fact, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (below) seems to be a penalty for renegade states that manipulate the ballot box to weaken the voting power of their citizens. Insights welcome.
Also, I'd say that Democrats have been violating Section 2 because they desperately want to use the illegal votes of non-citizens to retain control of state powers that the corrupt feds have been stealing from the states. This also includes retaining control of state revenues that the feds have been stealing from the states in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that the post-17th Amendment ratification feds cannot justify under Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From related threads …
Justice Roberts’ misguided (imo) opinion on this issue aside…
Today’s concern for voting fraud in renegade, Democratic-controlled states that allegedly want to use the illegal votes of undocumented Democrats to overthrow the constitutional republic is nothing new.
More specifically, the congressional record shows, regarding discussion related to the drafting of the 14th Amendment, that the federal government needs to know who its citizens are in order to be able to protect and defend the Constitution’s “Uniform rule of Naturalization Clause” (1.8.4) and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
”14th Amendment, Section 2. 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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens [emphasis added] twenty-one years of age in such State."
Here are specific concerns about protecting the voting power of citizens and the Constitution.
" If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but” * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
" Whatever difference there may be as to what other right appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government [emphasis added], from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)
Regarding PDJT's uncommon common sense argument that we don't want illegal alien criminals entering the US and harming US citizens, Justice Joseph Story had reflected this same concern decades before the civil war.
"…As the free inhabitants of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in all the other states, it followed, that a single state possessed the power of forcing into every other state, with the enjoyment of every immunity and privilege, any alien, whom it might choose to incorporate into its own society, however repugnant such admission might be to their polity, conveniencies, and even prejudices. …… There is great wisdom, therefore, in confiding to the national government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. It is of the deepest interest to the whole Union to know, who are entitled to enjoy the rights of citizens in each state, since they thereby, in effect, become entitled to the rights of citizens in all the states. If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges [emphases added]. …" —Justice Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship), Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1098--99, 1833.
It's not surprising that PDJT is keeping his eyes open for Democratic ballot box fraud in 2020 elections.
Patriots need to support PDJT in working with the states to allow only citizens who present valid citizenship / photo ID cards to be allowed to vote, such cards scannable and / or containing security chip to facilitate “vision-impaired” Democratic voting officials.
Patriots also need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT's vision of MAGA, now KAG, but will also promise to uphold their oaths to protect and defend both citizens and the Constitution.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG!
I wrote this to a lib friend of mine:
Honestly, do you really think that the founding fathers were debating and drawing up the Constitution and B. Franklin said “Lets include illegal people for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives” and G. Washingtion, said “I fought the best army in the world and lost lots of American lives to create this new nation and you want to count people from other countries who have no loyalty to this country and they take and don’t contribute and they are a burden to society, and you want to count them for apportionment of Representatives.....Yea, I kinda like that Benji, lets run with that.” You gotta be kidding me if think counting illegals is constitutional, because if you do then you believe this scenario actually happened. hahahaha.
It isn't the USSC's standard, it's law. See the Administrative Procedure Act.
This is not an official census form. It is for informational purposes only.
So one wonders if it was really on the 2000 Census questionnaire or not.
I can't read them myself, perhaps you have to print them off, or perhaps someone with better eyes can read them.
The first real immigration law didn't come about until about 1880.
Good stuff, thanx!
Take that, Roberts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.