Posted on 07/27/2020 8:53:37 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Three states would likely lose seats in the House of Representatives if President Trump's order stands to exclude illegal immigrants from the apportionment process that allocates seats based on the census.
According to a study from the Pew Research Center, California, Florida and Texas would each end up with one less representative than they would otherwise get, based on overall population change.
"The discretion delegated to the executive branch to determine who qualifies as an 'inhabitant' includes authority to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status," Trump said in a memorandum issued last Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Kinda think it’s the person’s not taxed.
They did it prior to the civil war.
And THAT was one of the big reasons for that war.
FOX NEWS fake news as usual. Remember the new VP of Fox News was Joe Biden’s Chief of staff....The article is a falsehood. People are moving to Florida by the mountains we already have more people than NY so dont believe Fox Fake News....Go to One America News it ,ay not be oh so great with visual presentation but they are the only network that brings us POTUS speeches in there entirety without snide remarks from know it all phonies reading a script written by someone else. Just watch them screw up when they have no script such as during a hurricane or other news items...
FOX NEWS fake news as usual. Remember the new VP of Fox News was Joe Biden’s Chief of staff....The article is a falsehood. People are moving to Florida by the mountains we already have more people than NY so dont believe Fox Fake News....Go to One America News it ,ay not be oh so great with visual presentation but they are the only network that brings us POTUS speeches in there entirety without snide remarks from know it all phonies reading a script written by someone else. Just watch them screw up when they have no script such as during a hurricane or other news items...
Illogical thinking. Children don’t vote. Would you say the same thing about children? Many adults do not vote.
Does a Congress Critter represent only those who voted for it? Only those who voted? Only those (adult citizens) who could have vote? Only citizens? Also non-ctizens here legally? Also illegals?
Once elected, the Congress Critter represents the DISTRICT and everything in it, both all humans, all businesses, everything.
I believe you refer to the amendment giving the former slaves voting rights.
we don’t get OAN in this area
The big change will be the re-drawing of lines
for the 2022 election The most important race in
November 2020 is for state legislature. The control
the map drawing. Long range that is far more
important than who wins for President.
If Biden wins, his actions will be determined by
how the new district boundaries are drawn.
Because the average House member now represents almost three quarters of a million people. A bigger House, with fewer people per district, would be more responsive. (Besides, it might be easier to win it back.)
No sir. PRIOR to the civil war.
Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person. It slanted the balance in the house of reps. Caused huge arguments in the HOR.
Hell, California ought to lose 3 or 4 because you know that there are at least 4 million illegal aliens in the state.
Motor Voter and then States giving driver’s licenses to illegals
It does not matter if you vote or not. The number of congressmen per state is greater in states with foreigners because they are in the census. That means the state is over represented in congress. That means my Wisconsin vote means less in congress because we have fewer congressmen per citizen.
The only reason these are Dem rule is because of illegals CA. is a third world MESS!!!!
If I recall correctly, the question on the census form as to whether one was a legal resident of the US was removed from the census form. I filled the form out several months ago and do not recall seeing that question. If so, then how does one “eliminate” non-legal residents, AKA illegal aliens?
Another question would be how to comply with the Constitution without counting citizens.
U.S. Const., Amend. 14:
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 twenty-one years of age in such state.
If citizens can’t be enumerated, how could the relevant part of Amendment 14 be enforced?
Congress is based on population. So if a non-citizen is counted, then they get a vote in congress. This should not happen. One citizen one vote, is the standard. Not, one person in the world, one vote. Remember US citizens can vote if they are anywhere in the world. So the rule should be one citizen one vote. And that has been the law.
That may sound good for voting rights, but it has never been the law for purposes of representation. Recall that the initial provision of the Constitution contained a clause about counting three-fifths of "all other persons" for representation purposes. The census has always been a head count, and not a count of citizens. During the early years of the country, due to active encouragement of immigrant settlers for the territories, various states had large populations of aliens, those who had not been naturalized.
There is some ambiguous phrasing in the constitutional provision which refers to "counting the whole number of persons in each state." This has been interpreted to include residents, but not visitors. It may have been better had they phrased it as "counting the whole number of persons of each state." A legal alien may be a lawful resident of the state. An illegal alien could be seen as having no legal status as a resident of the state. That may be a hair splitting contest, which may, or may not, survive legal challenge, but legal aliens have always been counted for purposes of representation.
For an example of in a state meaning resident, and not just present, consider a resident and citizen of California visiting and being present in Virginia at the time of the census, perhaps a military member stationed in Norfolk. With his home of record in California, he could vote in California elections, and should be counted as a resident of California for purposes of representation of that state.
[el padre #20] When did states begin including illegals in the congressional representation?[crz #22] They did it prior to the civil war.
There was no such thing as an illegal alien during the time of the Civil War. Aliens routinely had the right to vote in Federal elections pursuant to State law, and there was no Federal law to the contrary.
Notice that, during the Civil War, about half the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin were foreigners who had not been naturalized. Stanton’s reply confirmed they were eligible for the draft.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924079575241;view=1up;seq=381
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES.
MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862.Honorable E. M. STANTON:
About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them.
E. SALOMON,
Governor of Wisconsin.
There was a supplementary immigration act in 1875, largely aimed at the Chinese cooly trade, which provided for a targeted, rather than general, immigration control.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/43rd-congress/session-2/c43s2ch141.pdf
18 Stat. 477 (1875)
477FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 141. 1875.
CHAP. 141—An act supplementary to the acts in relation to immigration.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Hepresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in determining whether the immigration of any subject of China, Japan, or any Oriental country, to the United States, is free and voluntary, as provided by section two thousand one hundred and sixty-two of the Revised Code, title “Immigration,” it shall be the duty of the consul-general or consul of the United States residing at the port from which it is proposed to convey such subjects, in any vessels enrolled or licensed in the United States, or any port within the same, before delivering to the masters of any such vessels the permit or certificate provided for in such section, to ascertain whether such immigrant has entered into a contract or agreement for a term of service within the United States, for lewd and immoral purposes; and if there be such contract or agreement, the said consul-general or consul shall not deliver the required permit or certificate.
Sec. 2. That it any citizen of the United States, or other person amenable to the laws of the United States, shall take, or cause to be taken or transported, to or from the United States any subject of China, Japan, or any Oriental country, without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service, such citizen or other person shall be liable to be indicted therefor, and, on conviction of such offense, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and be imprisoned not exceeding one year; and all contracts and agreements for a term of service of such persons in the United States, whether made in advance or in pursuance of such illegal importation, and whether such importation shall have been in American, or other vessels, are hereby declared void.
Sec. 3. That the importation into the United States of women for the purposes of prostitution is hereby forbidden; and all contracts and agreements in relation thereto, made in advance or in pursuance of such illegal importation and purposes are hereby declared void; and whoever shall knowingly and willfully import, or cause any importation Of, women into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, or shall knowingly or willfully hold, or attempt to hold, any woman to such purposes, in pursuance of such illegal importation and contract or agreement, shall be deemed, guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned not exceeding five years and pay a fine not exceeding five thousand, dollars.
Sec. 4. That if any person shall knowingly and willfully contract, or attempt to contract, in advance or in pursuance of such illegal importation, to supply to another the labor of any cooly or other person brought into the United States in violation of section two thousand one hundred and fifty-eight of the Revised Statutes, or of any other section of the laws prohibiting the cooly-trade or of this act, such person shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, in any United States court, shall be fined in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.
Sec. 5. That it shall be unlawful for aliens of the following classes to immigrate into the United States, namely, persons who are undergoing a sentence for conviction in their own country of felonious crimes other than political or growing out of or the result of such political offenses, or whose sentence has been remitted on condition of their emigration, and women “imported for the purposes of prostitution.” Every vessel arriving in the United States may be inspected under the direction of the collector of the port at which it arrives, if he shall have reason to believe that any such obnoxious persons are on board; and the officer making such inspection shall certify the result thereof to the master or other person in charge of such vessel, designating in such certificate the person or persons, if any there be, ascertained by him to be of either of the classes whose importation is hereby forbidden. When such inspection is required by the collector as aforesaid, it shall be unlawful,
478
FORTY-THIRD. CONGRESS. Sess. II. Cn. 141,142, 143. 1875.
without his permission, for any alien to leave any such vessel arriving in the United States from a foreign country until the inspection shall have been had and the result certified as herein provided; and at no time thereafter shall any alien certified to by the inspecting officer as being of either of the classes whose immigration is forbidden by this section, be allowed to land in the United States, except in obedience to a judicial process issued pursuant to law. If any person shall feel aggrieved by the certificate of such inspecting officer stating him or her to be within either of the classes whose immigration is forbidden by this section, and shall apply for release or other remedy to any proper court or judge, then it shall be the duty of the collector at said port of entry to detain said vessel until a hearing and determination of the matter are had, to the end that if the said inspector, shall be found to be in accordance with this section and sustained, the obnoxious person or persons shall be returned on board of said vessel, and shall not thereafter be permitted to land, unless the master, owner, or consignee of the vessel shall give bond and security, to be approved by the court or judge hearing the cause, in the sum of five hundred dollars for each such person permitted to land, conditioned for the return of such person, within six months from the date thereof, to the country whence his or her emigration shall have taken place, or unless the vessel bringing such obnoxious person or persons shall be forfeited, in which event the proceeds of such forfeiture shall be paid over to the collector of the port of arrival, and applied by him, as far as necessary, to the return of such person or persons to his or her own country within the said period of six months. And for all violations of this act, the vessel, by the acts, omissions, or connivance of the owners, master, or other custodian, or the consignees of which the same are committed, shall be liable to forfeiture, and may be proceeded against as in cases of frauds against the revenue laws, for which forfeiture is prescribed by existing law.
Approved, March 3,1875.
General immigration was not regulated prior to the Act of August 3, 1882, 22 Stat. 214.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/47th-congress/session-l/c47slch376.pdf
22 Statutes at Large 214 (1882)
August 3, 1882.FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 376. 1882.
CHAP. 376.—An act to regulate Immigration.
Be it enacted fty the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of fifty cents for each and every passenger not a citizen of the United States who shall come by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port to any port within the United States. The said duty shall be paid to the collector of customs of the port to which such passenger shall come, or if there be no collector at such port, then to the collector of customs nearest thereto, by the master, owner, agent, or consignee of every such vessel, within twenty-four hours after the entry thereof into such port. The money thus collected shall be paid into the United States Treasury, and shall constitute a fund to be called the immigrant fund, and shall be used, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to defray the expense of regulating immigration under this act, and for the care of immigrants arriving in the United States, for the relief of such as are in distress, and for the general purposes and expenses of carrying this act into effect. The duty imposed by this section shall be a lien upon the vessels which shall bring such passengers into the United States, and shall be a debt in favor of the United States against the owner or owners of such vessels and the payment of such duty may be enforced by any legal or equitable remedy. Provided, That no greater sum shall be expended for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned, at any port, than shall have been collected at such port.
Sec. 2.—That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby charged with the duty of executing the provisions of this act and with supervision over the business of immigration to the United States, and for that purpose he shall have power to enter into contracts with such State commission, board, or officers as may be designated for that purpose by the governor of any State to take charge of the local affairs of immigration in the ports within said State, and to provide for the support and relief of such immigrants therein landing as may fall into distress or need public aid, under the rules and regulations to be prescribed by said Secretary; and it shall be the duty of such State commission, board, or officers so designated to examine into the condition of passeugers arriving at the ports within such State iu any ship or vessel, and for that purpose all or any of such commissioners or officers, or such other person or persons as they shall appoint, shall be authorized to go on board of and through any such ship or vessel; and if on such examination there shall be found among such passengers any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a pubfic charge, they shall report the same in writing to the collector of such port, and such persons shall not be permitted to land.
Sec. 3.—That the Secretary of the Treasury shall establish such regulations and rules and issue from time to time such instructions not inconsistent with law as he shall deem best calculated to protect the United States and immigrants into the United States from fraud and loss, and for carrying out the provisions of this act and the immigration laws of the United States; and he shall prescribe all forms of bonds, entries, and other papers to be used under and in the enforcement of the various provisions of this act.
Sec. 4.—That all foreign convicts except those convicted of political offenses, upon arrival, shall be sent back to the nations to which they belong and from whence they came. The Secretary of the Treasury may designate the State board of charities of any State in which such board shall exist by law, or any commission in any State, or any person or persons in any State whose duty it shall be to execute the provisions of this section without compensation. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe regulations for the return of the aforesaid persons to the countries from whence they came, and shall furnish instructions to the board, commission, or persons charged with the execution of the provisions of this section as to the mode of procedure in respect
215
FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 376-378. 1882.
thereto, and may change such instructions from time to time. The expense of such return of the aforesaid persons not permitted to land shall be borne by the owners of the vessels in which they came.
Sec. 5.—That this act shall take effect immediately.
Approved, August 3, 1882.
Upon constitutional challenge of the statute, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884) concluded, “It is enough to say that, Congress having the power to pass a law regulating immigration as a part of commerce of this country with foreign nations, we see nothing in the statute by which it has here exercised that power, forbidden by any other part of the Constitution. The judgment of the Circuit Court in all cases is Affirmed.”
There was no such thing as an illegal alien until the 1920s. Your whole line of thinking is ridiculous because when the Cponstitution was written and for 130 year after that, there was no concept of an illegal alien.
My ancestors transferred from a large ship to a small boat and came up the river to PA. There was no immigration law for them to violate by doing this. Immigration law said that vagrants, prostitutes, thieves and Chinese could not come to the US. But the enforcement was in the local sheriff proving that they were a vagrant, prostitute, etc.
In Chicago in the 1960s Immigration enforcement was almost totally a Chicago Police Department function. I participated in identifying and deporting so-called undesireables. The one I focused on were typically those who got into a bar fight. They were undesireable in my book.
Federal enforcement of immigration was mostly focused on finding and deporting exNazis and other “war criminals” and people wanted by European countries. The CPD had a good working relationship with the local police in Mexico and routinely gave each other heads-up.
Nixon, the most left wing president of my lifetime, changed all that and took away local control and centralized immigration enforcement in the Feds. Centralization of immigration is precisely what led to the current problem of undesireables.
Chicago’s Mayor fought Nixon in court to keep local control... and lost to LBJ appointed judges.
The LBJ-Nixon years saw the snowballing of central government control, the source of problems in other areas also.
There was no “free stuff” a century or more ago when immigrants came to the USA. People came to work and to be Americans back then. It is impossible to have a country with open borders and welfare, especially when the newcomers do not even like America.
There was no such thing as an illegal alien until the 1920s. Your whole line of thinking is ridiculous....
See my #37 for the initial immigration control law of 1882. Your line of thinking is totally detached from reality and the law.
My ancestors transferred from a large ship to a small boat and came up the river to PA. There was no immigration law for them to violate by doing this.
There was an immigration law after 1882 which I cited, linked and quoted in full.
In Chicago in the 1960s Immigration enforcement was almost totally a Chicago Police Department function.
Tell that to Congress and the Supreme Court.
Nixon, the most left wing president of my lifetime, changed all that and took away local control and centralized immigration enforcement in the Feds.
Nixon was to the left of Obama. There's a novel concept.
Centralization of immigration control occurred with the Constitution. State attempts to control it or tax it were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because the State lacked authority in that area. To Congress alone was conferred the sole and exclusive authority concerning admission of aliens to the United States. There is an ample supply of case law from the 19th century.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep092/usrep092275/usrep092275.pdf
Chuy Lung v Freeman, 92 U.S. 275, 280 (1875)
The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations: the responsibility for the character of those regulations, and for the manner of their execution, belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single State can, at her pleasure, embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep048/usrep048283/usrep048283.pdf
Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. 283 (1849)
Orders.Smith v. Turner.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors of the State of New York, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, that the statute law of New York, by which the health commissioner of the city of New York is declared entitled to demand and receive, from the master of every vessel from a foreign port that should arrive in the port of said city, the sum of one dollar for each steerage passenger brought in such vessel, is repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore void. Whereupon, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors be and the same is hereby reversed, with costs, and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the.Correction of Errors, in order that further proceedings may be had therein, in conformity to the aforesaid opinion and judgment of this court.
Norris v. City of Boston.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, that the third section of the act of the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the 20th of April, 1837, entitled, “An act relating to alien passengers,” under which the money mentioned in the record and pleadings was demanded of the plaintiff in error, and paid by him, is repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore void. Whereupon, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts be and the same is hereby reversed, with costs, and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Supreme Judicial Court, in order that further proceedings may be had therein in conformity to the aforesaid opinion and judgment of this court.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep107/usrep107059/usrep107059.pdf
People v Compagnie Generale Transatlanticique, 107 U.S. 59, 63 (1882)
In fact, these statutes differ from those heretofore held void only in calling them in their caption "inspection laws," and in providing for payment of any surplus, after the support of paupers, criminals, and diseased persons, into the treasury of the United States, — a surplus which, in this enlarged view of what are the expenses of an inspection law, it is safe to say will never exist.A State cannot make a law designed to raise money to support paupers, to detect or prevent crime, to guard against disease, and to cure the sick, an inspection law, within the constitutional meaning of that word, by calling it so in the title.
Since the decision of this case in the Circuit Court, Congress has undertaken to do what this court has repeatedly said it alone had the power to do. By the act of Aug. 3, 1882, c. 376, entitled " An Act to regulate immigration," a duty of fifty cents is to be collected, for every passenger not a citizen of the United States who shall come to any port within the United States by steam or sail vessel from a foreign country, from the master of said vessel by the collector of customs. The money so collected is to be paid into the treasury of the United States, and to constitute a fund to be called the immigrant fund, for the care of immigrants arriving in the United States, and the relief of such as are in distress. The Secretary of the Treasury is charged with the duty of executing the provisions of the act and with supervision over the business of immigration. No more of the fund so raised is to be expended in any port than is collected there. This legislation covers the same ground as the New York statute, and they cannot coexist.
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.