Supreme Court obliges Trump, will step in for census citizenship showdown

Washington Times ^ | 11-16-2018 | Stephen Dinan

[tcrlaf]

The Supreme Court announced Friday it will grant an expedited hearing on the Trump administration’s request to add a question concerning citizenship to the 2020 census. The justices set oral argument for February, converting what had been a narrow request involving one part of the case into a full grant of review.

[SunkenCiv]

Failure of the SCOTUS to uphold this would be another dealbreaker. Stock up.

[Hman528]

you forgot the one who will likely be the one that matters, Roberts, hes the one responsible for obamacare

[Sacajaweau]

Sorry....simply no way to differentiate between legal and illegal in too many cases.

The Constitution couldn't be clearer...You want a vote...You must be a citizen.

Should they have a say locally?? Sure...go to a Board meeting and be heard.

[Blue Collar Christian]

“SubChapter II, if you’re over 18 and refuse to answer all or part of the Census, you can be fined up to $100.”

And THAT is not enforced.

I, personally, would not answer whether or not I had served in the military, and nothing has come of it.

[AuH2ORepublican]

True, but Section 2 of the 14th Amendment goes on to refer to those “persons in each state” as “inhabitants,” so it did not mean to include persons tourists, transients or others without legal residency.

The “actual enumeration” that the Constitution mandates for purposes of apportionment of Representatives is supposed to count “persons in each state,” which the 14th Amendment explains means “inhabitants.” This “actual enumeration” is the decennial Census, which, of course, also counts a good many other things and has multiple uses. While I have no problem with the Census counting illegal aliens or persons with temporary visas for purposes of allocating money to states for garbage disposal and whatnot, the data collected for purposes of the decennial apportionment of congressional districts should only count actual “inhabitants.” That means legal residents, which include (i) citizens and (ii) legal permanent residents, but excludes foreign citizens without permanent-resident status such as aliens on tourist visas, aliens with other temporary visas (such as student visas or humanitarian visas) and aliens without any legal permit at all.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“persons tourists” = “persons such as tourists”

[weston]

DOJ lawyers today seem pretty feckless.
Anybody’s guess how this goes.

[Repeal The 17th]

And the courts will churn on the meanings of the words: ‘person’, ‘resident’, and ‘inhabitant’.

Currently, (I think) in places like military bases, prisons, and asylums ‘residents’ are counted as residing within that district.

[Logical me]

Problem is those answering the census will lie anyway if illegal. Republicans rely to much on honesty and they just don’t get it. But at least it is a try.

[House Atreides]

The illegals don’t count in my book, but the citizenship question is questionable in my humble opinion.
**************************************
IMHO, it is URGENT to include it. Perhaps if it in their MANY of the ILLEGAL ALIENS will “lay low” when the census questionnaires come in and they will avoid being counted. Then they won’t contribute to UNDESERVED Congressional Representatives and Electoral College votes going to their state.

[karnage]

GOOD.

[Brian Griffin]

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...

“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.”

Amendment XIV changed the apportionment method, basing it on citizens instead of residents.

Congress should make the statutory law conform to the Constitution ASAP.

[ridesthemiles]

NOT IN ARIZONA

[arrogantsob]

It describes citizenship with regard to voting rights but is ambiguous wrt being counted in the census when it switches to “persons”.

[TXnMA]

"The illegals don’t count in my book, but the citizenship question is questionable in my humble opinion."

I spent over four years of my life as a legal resident in Japan. I could neither vote in Japanese elections, nor was I counted in the Japanese census.

I was a U.S. citizen the entire time, and I presume that (as a member of the USAF on overseas duty) I was counted in the U.S. Census -- because I could vote in U.S. elections...

Is Japan smarter or more/less just than the U.S.A.?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are legal (non-Citizen) residents in the U.S. worthy of greater rights than I had in Japan (which I was defending)? [Can they still vote in the country where they are citizens?]

Are illegal occupants worthy of anything greater than having their @$$3$ kicked back across the border they violated to invade here?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you have any objection to both legal and illegal non-citizen residents being enumerated by category in the demographic statistics we call the Census?

(See tagline...)
TXnMA
 

[Karma_Sherab]

They can just lie on the form.
Yep.......'cause if they get caught, they'll get a sternly worded letter.

[quasimodo_79]

Your Q signature notwithstanding, I’ll answer this seriously:

<<Is Japan smarter or more/less just than the U.S.A.?

Japan is not comparable to the US given their history, geography and demographic make up. The US has 13+ million legal residents and is comprised of a heterogeneous population sourced from literally every corner of the world. Japan definitely does not, except for perhaps after their population replacement numbers started diminishing and they started allowing more immigrants.

<<Are legal (non-Citizen) residents in the U.S. worthy of greater rights than I had in Japan (which I was defending)? [Can they still vote in the country where they are citizens?]

Legal rights of each citizen/resident are worth what they are worth to the country they reside in in terms of their political/civic status. There is no standard upon which to judge every country’s immigrant’s since every country’s immigration laws are different. Case in point: Japan v. US. My point was that I think that legal residents should be counted in the Census, but not illegals. You disagree... that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

What does voting in the country of origin have to do my question?

<<Are illegal occupants worthy of anything greater than having their @$$3$ kicked back across the border they violated to invade here?

I specifically mentioned legal residents so as to not be pulled into these asides.

<<Do you have any objection to both legal and illegal non-citizen residents being enumerated by category in the demographic statistics we call the Census?

No I do not. Illegals can’t be numbered because that’s just common sense - unless you arm every census-taker and give them some backup and they can search every house they visit. My experience tells me people can lie as much as they want to the census taker or in the census application, depending on how they do it.

So we remain with more accurate citizen and legal resident numbers and lose count of the illegals.

Or we could just allow illegals to self-report without repercussions so we can get an accurate number of those who inhabit this great country.

Every action has an equal opposite reaction. It’s detrimental to the wellbeing of the US to ignore the real numbers of illegals by scaring them away from reporting.

[Chode]

WINNING!!!

[SMGFan]

census counts people and reapportions seats by those numbers. They will counted but questioned if they are citizens. True, some will “hide” from the count. But doubt 15 to 20 seats worth.

[SMGFan]

These States Are Projected to Gain House Seats After 2020 Census

In all, 16 states may be affected by the once-a-decade congressional reapportionment, according to the estimates, which are based on data from 2016 to 2017 and projected forward to 2020.

Arizona,
Colorado,
Montana,
North Carolina,
and Oregon are each expected to gain a single seat while

Texas and Florida would gain two seats.

After the 2020 congressional delegation apportionment, Florida is projected to have a larger delegation than New York, with 29 seats compared to New York’s 26. They currently each have 27. New York peaked at 45 seats after the 1940 Census.

Single-seat losses may occur in Alabama — the lone southern state among the losers —
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island and West Virginia.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-05/states-in-west-south-projected-to-gain-house-seats-after-2020

The number of House seats is capped at 435. Each state has two U.S. senators and at least one House seat, regardless of population. Election Data Services Inc. cautions users to take the projections as preliminary and subject to change.