# Judge Strikes Down Citizenship Question in 2020 Census



## candycorn

A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.

Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question

Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.


----------



## shockedcanadian

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.




What it means to even be an American is being watered down and devalued.


----------



## Polishprince

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.




Radical, out of control jurist appointed by B. Hussein O.    Wants to reward "Sanctuary" states and jurisdictions for encouraging illegals to move their.   Places like California will get more representatives in congress as their illegal populations will soar.


----------



## Toronado3800

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.




I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.

Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Shrug.

It goes to the next level.


----------



## saveliberty

Democrats forcing their moral neutrality on everyone.


----------



## candycorn

Toronado3800 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.
> 
> Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?
Click to expand...


As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.

Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?


----------



## TNHarley

Citizenship is controversial?
Wtf


----------



## Toronado3800

candycorn said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.
> 
> Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
Click to expand...


Good point on the 5th.  

Is the Census supposed to be anonymous though where it can't be used for criminal prosecution?


----------



## saveliberty

candycorn said:


> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?



Ask drug dealers on the occupation question....


----------



## Toronado3800

TNHarley said:


> Citizenship is controversial?
> Wtf



You miss the point.  We're talking about questions on the census not citizenship itself.  We're arguing immigration in 1010101 other threads.  Actually having a reasonable conversation and such over here also.


----------



## Hellbilly

saveliberty said:


> Democrats forcing their moral neutrality on everyone.



As opposed to republicans forcing their will on everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TNHarley

Its discrimination against immigrant communities of color?
Is this a fucking joke?


----------



## saveliberty

It is disingenuous to ask what sex, race, income level, age, occupation, health and other questions so that US policy can be formed going forward, but exclude illegal immigrant levels.


----------



## saveliberty

Billyboom said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats forcing their moral neutrality on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to republicans forcing their will on everyone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Rattle off a list of things they forced you to do snowflake.


----------



## MindWars

we will be sure to write none of your business across the entire paper they gget our first and last name that's it .  They can take their census bs and shove it up thier fkn asses because if racist bs isn't to exist then stop asking  WE THE PEOPLE WHAT FK COLOR, RACE, RELIGION WE ARE TO BEGIN WITH NOT ONLY ON A CENSUS PUT YOUR PATHETIC AMERICAN JOB APPLICATIONS, IF YOU ARE NOT GATHERING OR JUDGING PPL BASED OFF ALL THOSE ITEMS YOU CLAIM NOT TO DO ,  THEN WHY ASK ANY OF IT .


----------



## dcbl

this won't stand 

I don't think it will pass muster with this SCOTUS (looks like they will review this in February)

I am beyond being outraged with leftist fools on the bench, but still...

*quote:
Judge bars citizenship question from 2020 Census 
Associated Press 
January 15, 2019 

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge in New York has barred the Trump administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. 

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said Tuesday that while such a question would be constitutional, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had added it arbitrarily and not followed proper procedure.... 

The decision won't be the final word on the matter.... 

The U.S. Supreme Court is also poised to address the issue in February. 

LINK*


----------



## WillowTree

Why shouldn’t we know?


----------



## JimH52

https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.amppr...rt-blocks-citizenship-question-on-2020-census

Are we still Winning Donnie?


----------



## Oddball

Wowzers....Another leftist stooge judge oversteps his authority again, to intervene in a political issue....


----------



## Valerie

Oddball said:


> judge oversteps his authority


----------



## Valerie

"Hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of people will go uncounted in the census if the citizenship question is included," U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said in a 277-page opinion.

"In arriving at his decision as he did, *Secretary Ross violated the law*,"* Furman said*, adding that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross -- whose department oversees the census -- "violated the public trust" in doing so with respect to the census.

The Administrative Procedures Act requires an agency to "consider all important aspects of a problem," study relevant evidence and come to a conclusion supported by it, comply with procedures and laws and explain the facts and reasons for the decision, *Furman said. Ross’s decision "fell short on all these fronts," the judge said.




*


----------



## Wry Catcher

The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.


----------



## BlackFlag

It was removed in the first place because it reduces accuracy which is the whole point of the census


----------



## TNHarley

I see why it would be on there. i also see why it shouldnt be on there. I dont give a shit either way
I think some of the arguments against it are bogus though.


----------



## BlackFlag

Toronado3800 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.
> 
> Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?
Click to expand...

The question was removed in the 1st place because it lowered the accuracy of the count, which damaged the census.


----------



## Moonglow

What business is it of the feds to ask me what they already know?


----------



## The Original Tree

Let me Guess, Putin's pal, Obama put  this judge on the bench.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.


*Why do the Democrats want to hide their illegal alien voter base?*


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*TRUTH: The Corrupt Democratic Party benefits from illegal immigration because it gives them more House seats.
TRUTH: The Democrats regard Anglo Voters as its opposition.*


----------



## Wry Catcher

Clearly, to allow this question to be asked, will have two negative effects.  

Most households with a non citizen will not fill out and send in the census;
It puts a target on the back for ICE, and they can make a case for a warrant to detain the named person.
In terms of #1, it will have an effect on revenue sharing, in terms of #2 it will allow ICE to establish dragnets (consider the use of DNA, not used used in terms of this tread) to detain thousands of law abiding non citizens and separate a parent from their children.


----------



## WillowTree

So what exactly is the question? The title and the poll are different questions!


----------



## candycorn

JimH52 said:


> https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-01-15/u-s-court-blocks-citizenship-question-on-2020-census?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/u-s-court-blocks-citizenship-question-on-2020-census
> 
> Are we still Winning Donnie?



Well, if this is what the winners get:



 

I’ll take losing.

The Alabama players ate better than the Clemson players.

WinterBorn


----------



## ding

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.


Does that mean it is an illegal question when purchasing a firearm too?


----------



## ding

candycorn said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.
> 
> Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
Click to expand...

Only for illegal aliens. 

Do you think they are filling out the census anyway?  I don’t.


----------



## Erinwltr

US District Judge Jesse Furman said in a 277 page opinion "In arriving at his decision as he did, Secretary Ross violated the law," Furman said, adding that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross -- whose department oversees the census -- "violated the public trust" in doing so with respect to the census."

The Administrative Procedures Act requires an agency to "consider all important aspects of a problem," study relevant evidence and come to a conclusion supported by it, comply with procedures and laws and explain the facts and reasons for the decision, Furman said. Ross’s decision "fell short on all these fronts," the judge said.  (Courtesy of Valerie from another thread.)

Pretty much explains my no vote.


----------



## candycorn

ding said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean it is an illegal question when purchasing a firearm too?
Click to expand...


Fair question.  I don’t think you can equate the two however.


----------



## Geaux4it

I don't see the problem with the questions since at checkpoints in I-10 out of El Paso, the 405 north of San Diego, et al, they stop you and ask if you're a US citizen. Secondly, criminals like illegal aliens will just lie and say they are Americans

-Geaux


----------



## mudwhistle

shockedcanadian said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it means to even be an American is being watered down and devalued.
Click to expand...

Citizenship is racist.


----------



## 80zephyr

The judge says the question is constitutional, but says he doesn't like the way its been processed?

This is what we have come to? Judges who decide the process?

Mark


----------



## Wry Catcher

TNHarley said:


> I see why it would be on there. i also see why it shouldnt be on there. I dont give a shit either way
> I think some of the arguments against it are bogus though.



Really, I offered two.  Can you deny either one of them is not a valid and sound premise?


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillowTree said:


> So what exactly is the question? The title and the poll are different questions!



Mea culpa, I forgot to post the link:

"Is this person a citizen of the United States?"Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question


----------



## Wry Catcher

Geaux4it said:


> I don't see the problem with the questions since at checkpoints in I-10 out of El Paso, the 405 north of San Diego, et al, they stop you and ask if you're a US citizen. Secondly, criminals like illegal aliens will just lie and say they are Americans
> 
> -Geaux



What Probable Cause allows LE to stop and ask this question?


----------



## JoeMoma

Since the number of representatives in the house of representatives for each state is based on census numbers, it is important to know then number of citizens for each state.  States should not get extra representation for non-citizens.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

BlackFlag said:


> It was removed in the first place because it reduces accuracy which is the whole point of the census



How does more information reduce accuracy?


----------



## Hellbilly

saveliberty said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats forcing their moral neutrality on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to republicans forcing their will on everyone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rattle off a list of things they forced you to do snowflake.
Click to expand...


You can’t be serious. 
Insult me and expect a response?
Get therapy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimH52

Valerie said:


> "Hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of people will go uncounted in the census if the citizenship question is included," U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said in a 277-page opinion.
> 
> "In arriving at his decision as he did, *Secretary Ross violated the law*,"* Furman said*, adding that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross -- whose department oversees the census -- "violated the public trust" in doing so with respect to the census.
> 
> The Administrative Procedures Act requires an agency to "consider all important aspects of a problem," study relevant evidence and come to a conclusion supported by it, comply with procedures and laws and explain the facts and reasons for the decision, *Furman said. Ross’s decision "fell short on all these fronts," the judge said.
> 
> 
> 
> *



The Criminal in Chief just wants to locate anyone he feels in unfit to be in this country....based on HIS sense of unfit.....(whites only)


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

candycorn said:


> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?



Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?


----------



## BlackFlag

Billy_Kinetta said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was removed in the first place because it reduces accuracy which is the whole point of the census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does more information reduce accuracy?
Click to expand...

People don’t respond, and so the purpose of the census is defeated.  Decades of reasoning behind it.


----------



## WillowTree

Wry Catcher said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly is the question? The title and the poll are different questions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, I forgot to post the link:
> 
> "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
Click to expand...

Why would the judge care? Shouldn’t we know who’s here? Why allow them to hide?


----------



## WillowTree

I do not support the judge’s ruling!


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.




With no citizenship question, how does the government comply with the requirements of the 14th Amendment, with respect to the reduction of the count relating to representation?

.


----------



## saveliberty

Billyboom said:


> You can’t be serious.
> Insult me and expect a response?
> Get therapy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Got nothing and are easily offended.  You may want to consider your future on a message board as too challenging.


----------



## Wry Catcher

JoeMoma said:


> Since the number of representatives in the house of representatives for each state is based on census numbers, it is important to know then number of citizens for each state.  States should not get extra representation for non-citizens.



Did you consider the two points in my post?  Also, consider this link, and comment:

Should statistical sampling be used in the United States Census


----------



## JoeMoma

Wry Catcher said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the number of representatives in the house of representatives for each state is based on census numbers, it is important to know then number of citizens for each state.  States should not get extra representation for non-citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you consider the two points in my post?  Also, consider this link, and comment:
> 
> Should statistical sampling be used in the United States Census
Click to expand...

I didn't read the entire thread.  I only considered the question in the title and your opening post (#1).  Didn't really find any "points" there.


----------



## OKTexas

Valerie said:


> "Hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of people will go uncounted in the census if the citizenship question is included," U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said in a 277-page opinion.
> 
> "In arriving at his decision as he did, *Secretary Ross violated the law*,"* Furman said*, adding that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross -- whose department oversees the census -- "violated the public trust" in doing so with respect to the census.
> 
> The Administrative Procedures Act requires an agency to "consider all important aspects of a problem," study relevant evidence and come to a conclusion supported by it, comply with procedures and laws and explain the facts and reasons for the decision, *Furman said. Ross’s decision "fell short on all these fronts," the judge said.
> 
> 
> 
> *




So the judge didn't say the question was improper, just how they went about including it was. Because the question was included in past census.

.


----------



## TNHarley

Wry Catcher said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see why it would be on there. i also see why it shouldnt be on there. I dont give a shit either way
> I think some of the arguments against it are bogus though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, I offered two.  Can you deny either one of them is not a valid and sound premise?
Click to expand...

Yours were fine.
I heard today its discriminates against immigrant colored communities LOL


----------



## Timmy

Why was this moved from politics. ?

Anyaway .  The whole point of the question is too suppress participation in the census .  GOP up to their usual tricks .


----------



## Geaux4it

Wry Catcher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the problem with the questions since at checkpoints in I-10 out of El Paso, the 405 north of San Diego, et al, they stop you and ask if you're a US citizen. Secondly, criminals like illegal aliens will just lie and say they are Americans
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Probable Cause allows LE to stop and ask this question?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hellbilly

saveliberty said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t be serious.
> Insult me and expect a response?
> Get therapy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got nothing and are easily offended.  You may want to consider your future on a message board as too challenging.
Click to expand...


You wish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.



An honest voter database in an "Existential threat" to the democrat Party

What does that tell you?


----------



## mudwhistle

CrusaderFrank said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An honest voter database in an "Existential threat" to the democrat Party
> 
> What does that tell you?
Click to expand...

I think that roughly 30% of CA residents are now either illegal or anchor babies. Erase all of the illegals CA loses half a dozen electoral votes, and that many seats in the house.


----------



## candycorn

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
Click to expand...


No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.


----------



## ding

candycorn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean it is an illegal question when purchasing a firearm too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair question.  I don’t think you can equate the two however.
Click to expand...

I don’t see why not.  It’s the same exact question.  Why do you believe they are different?


----------



## candycorn

ding said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean it is an illegal question when purchasing a firearm too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair question.  I don’t think you can equate the two however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t see why not.  It’s the same exact question.  Why do you believe they are different?
Click to expand...


One allows you to buy a gun.  The other doesnt


----------



## Darkwind

Just remember, for every 770k people, Democrats get a new seat in Congress.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

candycorn said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
Click to expand...


But it's not asking if you're here illegally, is it?  Just if you're a citizen.  There are plenty of legal resident aliens in this country. 

In any case, the entire point of the Census was solely for Congressional apportionment.  Since that time it's come to ask all kinds of questions into people's lives.  I don't see how this question is any less Constitutional than the other questions asked.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.
> 
> Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
Click to expand...



The questions aren't being asked by law enforcement, so no.

.


----------



## OKTexas

mudwhistle said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An honest voter database in an "Existential threat" to the democrat Party
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that roughly 30% of CA residents are now either illegal or anchor babies. Erase all of the illegals CA loses half a dozen electoral votes, and that many seats in the house.
Click to expand...



TX and FL would likely loose seats also.

.


----------



## DandyDonovan

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.




This is another ruling the Trump Administration should ignore.


----------



## OKTexas

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not asking if you're here illegally, is it?  Just if you're a citizen.  There are plenty of legal resident aliens in this country.
> 
> In any case, the entire point of the Census was solely for Congressional apportionment.  Since that time it's come to ask all kinds of questions into people's lives.  I don't see how this question is any less Constitutional than the other questions asked.
Click to expand...



Exactly there are a lot of non-citizen resident aliens, just answering a citizenship question isn't saying you're here illegally.

.


----------



## Crepitus

MindWars said:


> we will be sure to write none of your business across the entire paper they gget our first and last name that's it .  They can take their census bs and shove it up thier fkn asses because if racist bs isn't to exist then stop asking  WE THE PEOPLE WHAT FK COLOR, RACE, RELIGION WE ARE TO BEGIN WITH NOT ONLY ON A CENSUS PUT YOUR PATHETIC AMERICAN JOB APPLICATIONS, IF YOU ARE NOT GATHERING OR JUDGING PPL BASED OFF ALL THOSE ITEMS YOU CLAIM NOT TO DO ,  THEN WHY ASK ANY OF IT .


Dude, I've heard about this stuff called Prozac, it's supposed to help folks like you.

You might wanna check into it.


----------



## JoeMoma

candycorn said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
Click to expand...

Asking a person to testify against his self does not violate the 5th. Forcing a person to testify against violates the 5th.


----------



## danielpalos

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.


there is no immigration clause; we have a naturalization clause.


----------



## ding

candycorn said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean it is an illegal question when purchasing a firearm too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair question.  I don’t think you can equate the two however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t see why not.  It’s the same exact question.  Why do you believe they are different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One allows you to buy a gun.  The other doesnt
Click to expand...

So?  

It’s a valid question regardless.


----------



## candycorn

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not asking if you're here illegally, is it?  Just if you're a citizen.  There are plenty of legal resident aliens in this country.
> 
> In any case, the entire point of the Census was solely for Congressional apportionment.  Since that time it's come to ask all kinds of questions into people's lives.  I don't see how this question is any less Constitutional than the other questions asked.
Click to expand...


Ok


----------



## candycorn

ding said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean it is an illegal question when purchasing a firearm too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair question.  I don’t think you can equate the two however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t see why not.  It’s the same exact question.  Why do you believe they are different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One allows you to buy a gun.  The other doesnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> It’s a valid question regardless.
Click to expand...

Ok


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Billyboom said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats forcing their moral neutrality on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to republicans forcing their will on everyone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rattle off a list of things they forced you to do snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t be serious.
> Insult me and expect a response?
> Get therapy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Calling you a snowflake is a high honor.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Darkwind said:


> Just remember, for every 770k people, Democrats get a new seat in Congress.



Actually, they just get back one they lost in Pennsylvania or New York, instead of giving it to Florida, Texas, or Arizona, like would normally happen.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OKTexas said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An honest voter database in an "Existential threat" to the democrat Party
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that roughly 30% of CA residents are now either illegal or anchor babies. Erase all of the illegals CA loses half a dozen electoral votes, and that many seats in the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TX and FL would likely loose seats also.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No, they would not "loose" seats.  States up north are losing seats, like NY and Pennsylvania where tax flight is more common.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking a person to testify against his self does not violate the 5th. Forcing a person to testify against violates the 5th.
Click to expand...


Try that post again.  You failed miserably.


----------



## JoeMoma

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking a person to testify against his self does not violate the 5th. Forcing a person to testify against violates the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try that post again.  You failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Forcing a person to testify against HIMSELF violates the 5th.  If that's my worst failure today, I'm doing pretty good.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking a person to testify against his self does not violate the 5th. Forcing a person to testify against violates the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try that post again.  You failed miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forcing a person to testify against HIMSELF violates the 5th.  If that's my worst failure today, I'm doing pretty good.
Click to expand...


Why didn't you just say that the first time and explain what that has to do with the topic?


----------



## airplanemechanic

candycorn said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.
> 
> Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
Click to expand...


Nope because true illegals have no constitutional rights. If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply neither does the 5th.


----------



## JoeMoma

1.  I didn't realize I left that word out.  It's not like i proofread every post I make.

2.  Read the posts I was responding to if you want to know what it has to do with topic,


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> 1.  I didn't realize I left that word out.  It's not like i proofread every post I make.
> 
> 2.  Read the posts I was responding to if you want to know what it has to do with topic,



Why don't you?

How can I read something that you don't quote, like in this post for example?


----------



## Wry Catcher

airplanemechanic said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for doubling or quadrupling the legal immigration quota.  Heck, let all illegals who are here have an easy path to citizenship if they can work and stay out of jail for a decade.
> 
> Still, what's the real harm in asking for counting purposes?  Are we going to find out there are more illegals near the border or something and target enforcement into certain census tracks?  Are people going to answer honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope because true illegals have no constitutional rights. If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply neither does the 5th.
Click to expand...


Where did you learn that the Bill of Rights does not apply to "true illegals"?

For the record, the BoR's applies to all, sadly for you to people of color and to all human beings too - even you.


----------



## OKTexas

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An honest voter database in an "Existential threat" to the democrat Party
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that roughly 30% of CA residents are now either illegal or anchor babies. Erase all of the illegals CA loses half a dozen electoral votes, and that many seats in the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TX and FL would likely loose seats also.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.  States up north are losing seats, like NY and Pennsylvania where tax flight is more common.
Click to expand...



Have you read the 14th Amendment, it says counts for representation should be reduced by the number of voting aged adults that aren't eligible to vote. That would include felons that have lost their voting rights and both legal and illegal immigrants.

.


----------



## JoeMoma

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I didn't realize I left that word out.  It's not like i proofread every post I make.
> 
> 2.  Read the posts I was responding to if you want to know what it has to do with topic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> How can I read something that you don't quote, like in this post for example?
Click to expand...

I quoted it earlier....go back and look, if you are not too lazy.


----------



## OKTexas

JoeMoma said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the Census is a binding document and you can get into trouble for lying on it.  It carries with it, the force of law.  In short, you’re testifying.
> 
> Wouldn’t asking that question be a violation of the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't asking any of the questions on the form other than the number of people living in your household violate the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would think that questions about your employment wouldn’t constitute a violation of the 5th.  Asking if you’re here illegally is pretty much asking you to testify against yourself though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking a person to testify against his self does not violate the 5th. Forcing a person to testify against violates the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try that post again.  You failed miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forcing a person to testify against HIMSELF violates the 5th.  If that's my worst failure today, I'm doing pretty good.
Click to expand...



Census workers are not law enforcement, plus illegals are NOT the only non-citizens living in the country. You also have TPS, refugees, asyles and permanent residences. Also people in welfare offices question citizenship all the damn time.

.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OKTexas said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An honest voter database in an "Existential threat" to the democrat Party
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that roughly 30% of CA residents are now either illegal or anchor babies. Erase all of the illegals CA loses half a dozen electoral votes, and that many seats in the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TX and FL would likely loose seats also.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.  States up north are losing seats, like NY and Pennsylvania where tax flight is more common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the 14th Amendment, it says counts for representation should be reduced by the number of voting aged adults that aren't eligible to vote. That would include felons that have lost their voting rights and both legal and illegal immigrants.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OK.  Agreed.  Now what does that have to do with what I said? I am stating facts.  Look at the recent changes in the electoral college due to changes in the census.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I didn't realize I left that word out.  It's not like i proofread every post I make.
> 
> 2.  Read the posts I was responding to if you want to know what it has to do with topic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> How can I read something that you don't quote, like in this post for example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted it earlier....go back and look, if you are not too lazy.
Click to expand...


It is not my job to do your job.  Be clear or shut up!  Making excuses for your ignorance is a lib tactic and quite beneath you.


----------



## OKTexas

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest voter database in an "Existential threat" to the democrat Party
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that roughly 30% of CA residents are now either illegal or anchor babies. Erase all of the illegals CA loses half a dozen electoral votes, and that many seats in the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TX and FL would likely loose seats also.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.  States up north are losing seats, like NY and Pennsylvania where tax flight is more common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the 14th Amendment, it says counts for representation should be reduced by the number of voting aged adults that aren't eligible to vote. That would include felons that have lost their voting rights and both legal and illegal immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK.  Agreed.  Now what does that have to do with what I said? I am stating facts.  Look at the recent changes in the electoral college due to changes in the census.
Click to expand...



If non-citizens weren't counted for representation, states with high populations will lose seats. They haven't been enforcing the provisions of the 14th for some time now. Non-citizens can be legally counted for every other purpose.

.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OKTexas said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that roughly 30% of CA residents are now either illegal or anchor babies. Erase all of the illegals CA loses half a dozen electoral votes, and that many seats in the house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TX and FL would likely loose seats also.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.  States up north are losing seats, like NY and Pennsylvania where tax flight is more common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the 14th Amendment, it says counts for representation should be reduced by the number of voting aged adults that aren't eligible to vote. That would include felons that have lost their voting rights and both legal and illegal immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK.  Agreed.  Now what does that have to do with what I said? I am stating facts.  Look at the recent changes in the electoral college due to changes in the census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If non-citizens weren't counted for representation, states with high populations will lose seats. They haven't been enforcing the provisions of the 14th for some time now. Non-citizens can be legally counted for every other purpose.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have a question for you.  Where did I disagree with any of that?  Why are you arguing something with me that we agree upon?

You need to select your targets better.


----------



## OKTexas

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> TX and FL would likely loose seats also.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.  States up north are losing seats, like NY and Pennsylvania where tax flight is more common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the 14th Amendment, it says counts for representation should be reduced by the number of voting aged adults that aren't eligible to vote. That would include felons that have lost their voting rights and both legal and illegal immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK.  Agreed.  Now what does that have to do with what I said? I am stating facts.  Look at the recent changes in the electoral college due to changes in the census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If non-citizens weren't counted for representation, states with high populations will lose seats. They haven't been enforcing the provisions of the 14th for some time now. Non-citizens can be legally counted for every other purpose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question for you.  Where did I disagree with any of that?  Why are you arguing something with me that we agree upon?
> 
> You need to select your targets better.
Click to expand...





Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> No, they would not "loose" seats.


Any questions?

.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OKTexas said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.  States up north are losing seats, like NY and Pennsylvania where tax flight is more common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the 14th Amendment, it says counts for representation should be reduced by the number of voting aged adults that aren't eligible to vote. That would include felons that have lost their voting rights and both legal and illegal immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK.  Agreed.  Now what does that have to do with what I said? I am stating facts.  Look at the recent changes in the electoral college due to changes in the census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If non-citizens weren't counted for representation, states with high populations will lose seats. They haven't been enforcing the provisions of the 14th for some time now. Non-citizens can be legally counted for every other purpose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question for you.  Where did I disagree with any of that?  Why are you arguing something with me that we agree upon?
> 
> You need to select your targets better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, why are their seats loose?  If they are, they might lose them!


----------



## OKTexas

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the 14th Amendment, it says counts for representation should be reduced by the number of voting aged adults that aren't eligible to vote. That would include felons that have lost their voting rights and both legal and illegal immigrants.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  Agreed.  Now what does that have to do with what I said? I am stating facts.  Look at the recent changes in the electoral college due to changes in the census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If non-citizens weren't counted for representation, states with high populations will lose seats. They haven't been enforcing the provisions of the 14th for some time now. Non-citizens can be legally counted for every other purpose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question for you.  Where did I disagree with any of that?  Why are you arguing something with me that we agree upon?
> 
> You need to select your targets better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why are their seats loose?  If they are, they might lose them!
Click to expand...



Now you're being a typo nazi, really? lmao

.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OKTexas said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.  Agreed.  Now what does that have to do with what I said? I am stating facts.  Look at the recent changes in the electoral college due to changes in the census.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If non-citizens weren't counted for representation, states with high populations will lose seats. They haven't been enforcing the provisions of the 14th for some time now. Non-citizens can be legally counted for every other purpose.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question for you.  Where did I disagree with any of that?  Why are you arguing something with me that we agree upon?
> 
> You need to select your targets better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why are their seats loose?  If they are, they might lose them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're being a typo nazi, really? lmao
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's not usually a typo.  It is incorrect word choice.  A typo would be spelling it "louse" or something similar.


----------



## OKTexas

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> If non-citizens weren't counted for representation, states with high populations will lose seats. They haven't been enforcing the provisions of the 14th for some time now. Non-citizens can be legally counted for every other purpose.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you.  Where did I disagree with any of that?  Why are you arguing something with me that we agree upon?
> 
> You need to select your targets better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would not "loose" seats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, why are their seats loose?  If they are, they might lose them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're being a typo nazi, really? lmao
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not usually a typo.  It is incorrect word choice.  A typo would be spelling it "louse" or something similar.
Click to expand...



No it was a typo, if you bothered to look it was spelled correctly in other posts.

.


----------



## JBvM

shockedcanadian said:


> What it means to even be an American is being watered down and devalued.


that happened way back when we allowed the swarthy Germans like Family Trump into the USA. 

just ask Ben Franklin


----------



## JoeMoma

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I didn't realize I left that word out.  It's not like i proofread every post I make.
> 
> 2.  Read the posts I was responding to if you want to know what it has to do with topic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> How can I read something that you don't quote, like in this post for example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted it earlier....go back and look, if you are not too lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my job to do your job.  Be clear or shut up!  Making excuses for your ignorance is a lib tactic and quite beneath you.
Click to expand...

It's not my job to read the thread to you, stop being a F'ing moron.


----------



## Lysistrata

candycorn said:


> A Federal Judge has ordered the Commerce Dept to not have the question on the Census.
> 
> Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question
> 
> Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.



The Administrative Procedure Act has been around since the 1940's. It's the Washington bible and everybody knows it. This guy ross apparently does not know his stuff. This is not the first time that somebody in the trump administration has failed to follow it. I seem to remember that some goofball at HHS committed an APA violation with regard to some change in rules pertaining to birth control and/or abortion. Follow the rules, people.


----------



## Hellbilly

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats forcing their moral neutrality on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to republicans forcing their will on everyone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rattle off a list of things they forced you to do snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t be serious.
> Insult me and expect a response?
> Get therapy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling you a snowflake is a high honor.
Click to expand...


Last time I checked, snowflakes were white.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Billyboom said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats forcing their moral neutrality on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to republicans forcing their will on everyone.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rattle off a list of things they forced you to do snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can’t be serious.
> Insult me and expect a response?
> Get therapy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling you a snowflake is a high honor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, snowflakes were white.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


So?  I  agree with MLK, Jr.  I don't care about the color of your skin, but the content of your character.  

If you display the attitude, expect to be called a snowflake.  Live and learn!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I didn't realize I left that word out.  It's not like i proofread every post I make.
> 
> 2.  Read the posts I was responding to if you want to know what it has to do with topic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> How can I read something that you don't quote, like in this post for example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted it earlier....go back and look, if you are not too lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my job to do your job.  Be clear or shut up!  Making excuses for your ignorance is a lib tactic and quite beneath you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to read the thread to you, stop being a F'ing moron.
Click to expand...


Oh, that's rich!  Your posts make no sense, and I am the moron.  Shows some guts and admit your error and we can move on!


----------



## JoeMoma

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I didn't realize I left that word out.  It's not like i proofread every post I make.
> 
> 2.  Read the posts I was responding to if you want to know what it has to do with topic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> How can I read something that you don't quote, like in this post for example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted it earlier....go back and look, if you are not too lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my job to do your job.  Be clear or shut up!  Making excuses for your ignorance is a lib tactic and quite beneath you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to read the thread to you, stop being a F'ing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich!  Your posts make no sense, and I am the moron.  Shows some guts and admit your error and we can move on!
Click to expand...

Yes, you are the moron because you will not go back to the part of the thread where this all started and read the quote chain.  Go to post number 61, where you entered the conversation and read quotes starting with Candy Corn.  Then if you still don't understand it's because you are a moron.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

JoeMoma said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> How can I read something that you don't quote, like in this post for example?
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted it earlier....go back and look, if you are not too lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my job to do your job.  Be clear or shut up!  Making excuses for your ignorance is a lib tactic and quite beneath you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to read the thread to you, stop being a F'ing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich!  Your posts make no sense, and I am the moron.  Shows some guts and admit your error and we can move on!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are the moron because you will not go back to the part of the thread where this all started and read the quote chain.  Go to post number 61, where you entered the conversation and read quotes starting with Candy Corn.  Then if you still don't understand it's because you are a moron.
Click to expand...


Hey dumbass!  I can't read posts for people I have on "ignore".  Can you?


----------



## JoeMoma

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted it earlier....go back and look, if you are not too lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my job to do your job.  Be clear or shut up!  Making excuses for your ignorance is a lib tactic and quite beneath you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my job to read the thread to you, stop being a F'ing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's rich!  Your posts make no sense, and I am the moron.  Shows some guts and admit your error and we can move on!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are the moron because you will not go back to the part of the thread where this all started and read the quote chain.  Go to post number 61, where you entered the conversation and read quotes starting with Candy Corn.  Then if you still don't understand it's because you are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass!  I can't read posts for people I have on "ignore".  Can you?
Click to expand...

Sure, I can read the posts of people you have on "ignore".  No wonder you don't understand my post since I was commenting on something said by someone you are ignoring.  Well, that is the sacrifice you have to make when you ignore people.  Don't expect me to fill you in on the conversations of people you are ignoring, dumbass!


----------



## Clementine

Illegals help Dems get more votes by giving them more electoral votes.   I believe they are also the reason Hillary got more popular votes.

Illegal aliens should not be represented by our government but they are because of the left's crazy policies.  They have representation in their own countries.    An activist judge went against our laws to make sure that illegals will tilt the playing field in favor of the left.   It's just wrong no matter how you look at it.    It disenfranchises citizens.   

Also, I answered the survey according to the question on thread title.   Didn't see the other question till it was too late.    

The question of citizenship should be asked.    If the answer is no, they should not be counted in regards to the electoral numbers.    They shouldn't be here at all if they are not here legally.   It's not that difficult to come legally.    The only reason to sneak in is because they wouldn't pass a background check or are coming to commit crimes.    

I guess the left doesn't care about the safety of people.   Otherwise, they would offer sanctuary to criminals, rapists, human traffickers, gangs, and other scum and count them as people needing representation from Dems.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The question was clearly added in bad faith, intended to discourage Hispanic participation.


----------



## OldLady

Wry Catcher said:


> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.


I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.

It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.


----------



## WillowTree

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The question was clearly added in bad faith, intended to discourage Hispanic participation.


Illegal Hispanic participation? Because the legal Hispanics would have nothing to bitch about right?


----------



## WillowTree

OldLady said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
Click to expand...

Lie? Why? Because they are in the country illegally?


----------



## OldLady

Clementine said:


> Illegals help Dems get more votes by giving them more electoral votes.   I believe they are also the reason Hillary got more popular votes.
> 
> Illegal aliens should not be represented by our government but they are because of the left's crazy policies.  They have representation in their own countries.    An activist judge went against our laws to make sure that illegals will tilt the playing field in favor of the left.   It's just wrong no matter how you look at it.    It disenfranchises citizens.
> 
> Also, I answered the survey according to the question on thread title.   Didn't see the other question till it was too late.
> 
> The question of citizenship should be asked.    If the answer is no, they should not be counted in regards to the electoral numbers.    They shouldn't be here at all if they are not here legally.   It's not that difficult to come legally.    The only reason to sneak in is because they wouldn't pass a background check or are coming to commit crimes.
> 
> I guess the left doesn't care about the safety of people.   Otherwise, they would offer sanctuary to criminals, rapists, human traffickers, gangs, and other scum and count them as people needing representation from Dems.


The census is used for a lot of other things beside electoral slots.  The number of people in a given area need to be counted.
There are other ways to fix the illegal problem.  Ignoring them on the census is not one of them.


----------



## OldLady

WillowTree said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie? Why? Because they are in the country illegally?
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

BlackFlag said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was removed in the first place because it reduces accuracy which is the whole point of the census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does more information reduce accuracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People don’t respond, and so the purpose of the census is defeated.  Decades of reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...


  So you want illegals to get representation?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The question was clearly added in bad faith, intended to discourage Hispanic participation.



   If they're citizens how is asking in bad faith?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OldLady said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
Click to expand...


   Why should illegals get representation?


----------



## HenryBHough

Citizenship questions appeared under many presidents, especially under Democrat presidents.  The information was needed then and it's especially needed now.  If you're going to count illegals - who are not supposed to vote - then you might as well count cats, dogs, and in SFO and NYC human turds lying on the sidewalks.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OldLady said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals help Dems get more votes by giving them more electoral votes.   I believe they are also the reason Hillary got more popular votes.
> 
> Illegal aliens should not be represented by our government but they are because of the left's crazy policies.  They have representation in their own countries.    An activist judge went against our laws to make sure that illegals will tilt the playing field in favor of the left.   It's just wrong no matter how you look at it.    It disenfranchises citizens.
> 
> Also, I answered the survey according to the question on thread title.   Didn't see the other question till it was too late.
> 
> The question of citizenship should be asked.    If the answer is no, they should not be counted in regards to the electoral numbers.    They shouldn't be here at all if they are not here legally.   It's not that difficult to come legally.    The only reason to sneak in is because they wouldn't pass a background check or are coming to commit crimes.
> 
> I guess the left doesn't care about the safety of people.   Otherwise, they would offer sanctuary to criminals, rapists, human traffickers, gangs, and other scum and count them as people needing representation from Dems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The census is used for a lot of other things beside electoral slots.  The number of people in a given area need to be counted.
> There are other ways to fix the illegal problem.  Ignoring them on the census is not one of them.
Click to expand...


  Explain in detail what other reasons you're referring to.


----------



## WillowTree

OldLady said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals help Dems get more votes by giving them more electoral votes.   I believe they are also the reason Hillary got more popular votes.
> 
> Illegal aliens should not be represented by our government but they are because of the left's crazy policies.  They have representation in their own countries.    An activist judge went against our laws to make sure that illegals will tilt the playing field in favor of the left.   It's just wrong no matter how you look at it.    It disenfranchises citizens.
> 
> Also, I answered the survey according to the question on thread title.   Didn't see the other question till it was too late.
> 
> The question of citizenship should be asked.    If the answer is no, they should not be counted in regards to the electoral numbers.    They shouldn't be here at all if they are not here legally.   It's not that difficult to come legally.    The only reason to sneak in is because they wouldn't pass a background check or are coming to commit crimes.
> 
> I guess the left doesn't care about the safety of people.   Otherwise, they would offer sanctuary to criminals, rapists, human traffickers, gangs, and other scum and count them as people needing representation from Dems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The census is used for a lot of other things beside electoral slots.  The number of people in a given area need to be counted.
> There are other ways to fix the illegal problem.  Ignoring them on the census is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Why don’t ewe tell us the steps we need to take to deal with illegal immigration?


----------



## OldLady

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
Click to expand...

Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.


----------



## OldLady

WillowTree said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals help Dems get more votes by giving them more electoral votes.   I believe they are also the reason Hillary got more popular votes.
> 
> Illegal aliens should not be represented by our government but they are because of the left's crazy policies.  They have representation in their own countries.    An activist judge went against our laws to make sure that illegals will tilt the playing field in favor of the left.   It's just wrong no matter how you look at it.    It disenfranchises citizens.
> 
> Also, I answered the survey according to the question on thread title.   Didn't see the other question till it was too late.
> 
> The question of citizenship should be asked.    If the answer is no, they should not be counted in regards to the electoral numbers.    They shouldn't be here at all if they are not here legally.   It's not that difficult to come legally.    The only reason to sneak in is because they wouldn't pass a background check or are coming to commit crimes.
> 
> I guess the left doesn't care about the safety of people.   Otherwise, they would offer sanctuary to criminals, rapists, human traffickers, gangs, and other scum and count them as people needing representation from Dems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The census is used for a lot of other things beside electoral slots.  The number of people in a given area need to be counted.
> There are other ways to fix the illegal problem.  Ignoring them on the census is not one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don’t ewe tell us the steps we need to take to deal with illegal immigration?
Click to expand...

Wrong thread.


----------



## WillowTree

OldLady said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals help Dems get more votes by giving them more electoral votes.   I believe they are also the reason Hillary got more popular votes.
> 
> Illegal aliens should not be represented by our government but they are because of the left's crazy policies.  They have representation in their own countries.    An activist judge went against our laws to make sure that illegals will tilt the playing field in favor of the left.   It's just wrong no matter how you look at it.    It disenfranchises citizens.
> 
> Also, I answered the survey according to the question on thread title.   Didn't see the other question till it was too late.
> 
> The question of citizenship should be asked.    If the answer is no, they should not be counted in regards to the electoral numbers.    They shouldn't be here at all if they are not here legally.   It's not that difficult to come legally.    The only reason to sneak in is because they wouldn't pass a background check or are coming to commit crimes.
> 
> I guess the left doesn't care about the safety of people.   Otherwise, they would offer sanctuary to criminals, rapists, human traffickers, gangs, and other scum and count them as people needing representation from Dems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The census is used for a lot of other things beside electoral slots.  The number of people in a given area need to be counted.
> There are other ways to fix the illegal problem.  Ignoring them on the census is not one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don’t ewe tell us the steps we need to take to deal with illegal immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong thread.
Click to expand...

Ewe brought it up!


----------



## WillowTree

OldLady said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
Click to expand...

Stop with the they can’t vote bullshit! If they can cross the border illegally, falseify records, steal ID they can fucking vote. Remember the illegal who murdered Mollie Tibet’s? He did all of the above! Next stupid utterance?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.



You mean to say "added back", right?  Only citizens should count towards the census, and therefore the EC

1920

Year of immigration to the United States
Is the person naturalized or alien?
If naturalized, what was the year of naturalization?
1950

What State or country was the person born in?
If foreign born, is the person naturalized?
1980 

The following questions were asked of a sample of respondents:


In what state or foreign country was the person born?
If this person was born in a foreign country...
Is this person a naturalized citizen of the United States?
When did this person come the United States to stay?


1950 (Population) - History - U.S. Census Bureau


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OldLady said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
Click to expand...


   So you support people who are harboring criminals?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Remember democrats admitted that they can't win with an accurate voter roll, so this is life or death for them


----------



## Wry Catcher

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
Click to expand...


What do you mean by getting represented?

Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?

That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on School Board Members.

It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.

Q.  Why

A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.

CA has passed the Real ID requirement.  See:  REAL ID Checklist


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Wry Catcher said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by getting represented?
> 
> Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?
> 
> That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on the School Board.
> 
> It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.
> 
> Q.  Why
> 
> A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.
Click to expand...


  By population obviously.
The more constituents the more representation they get regardless of political persuasion.


----------



## Wry Catcher

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by getting represented?
> 
> Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?
> 
> That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on the School Board.
> 
> It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.
> 
> Q.  Why
> 
> A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By population obviously.
> The more constituents the more representation they get regardless of political persuasion.
Click to expand...


I see (what you meant), so you believe and want others to believe CA population has exploded with alien residents, who all vote and who all are Democrats.

Fake news my friend, very fake indeed.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Wry Catcher said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by getting represented?
> 
> Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?
> 
> That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on the School Board.
> 
> It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.
> 
> Q.  Why
> 
> A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By population obviously.
> The more constituents the more representation they get regardless of political persuasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see (what you meant), so you believe and want others to believe CA population has exploded with alien residents, who all vote and who all are Democrats.
> 
> Fake news my friend, very fake indeed.
Click to expand...



  Fake news my ass.
You're the ones claiming you're going to turn Texas into a blue state via immigration ya jizz pot.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Wry Catcher said:


> Clearly, to allow this question to be asked, will have two negative effects.
> 
> Most households with a non citizen will not fill out and send in the census;
> It puts a target on the back for ICE, and they can make a case for a warrant to detain the named person.
> In terms of #1, it will have an effect on revenue sharing, in terms of #2 it will allow ICE to establish dragnets (consider the use of DNA, not used used in terms of this tread) to detain thousands of law abiding non citizens and separate a parent from their children.



How can non-citizen be law abiding when they are illegally here?

I find it strange how you throw out the laws they are breaking while attempting to make ICE the bad guy in this discussion...


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Wry Catcher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the problem with the questions since at checkpoints in I-10 out of El Paso, the 405 north of San Diego, et al, they stop you and ask if you're a US citizen. Secondly, criminals like illegal aliens will just lie and say they are Americans
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Probable Cause allows LE to stop and ask this question?
Click to expand...


They ask the question all the time at border checkpoints, so are you saying they should not?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Wry Catcher said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by getting represented?
> 
> Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?
> 
> That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on School Board Members.
> 
> It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.
> 
> Q.  Why
> 
> A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.
> 
> CA has passed the Real ID requirement.  See:  REAL ID Checklist
Click to expand...


Boy you put all the damn blame on the GOP for your political party failure and claim the GOP only loves this wedge issue!

You very well know the GOP would never pass any form of Immigration Reform, so why act like they failed?

From 2009 to 2011 the Democrats had their chance to end this issue, so why did they fail?

Simple, Obama, Pelosi and Reid did not care at all and neither did you until they lost the House.

When the Democrats gain back control of the House, Senate and Oval Office altogether I am willing to bet that nothing will be done.

Hell, what has Pelosi passed to send to the Senate so far?

Not a damn thing!

Why?

Simple, she loves this wedge issue...


----------



## OldLady

WillowTree said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop with the they can’t vote bullshit! If they can cross the border illegally, falseify records, steal ID they can fucking vote. Remember the illegal who murdered Mollie Tibet’s? He did all of the above! Next stupid utterance?
Click to expand...

You think they are going to take unnecessary risks of being caught by walking into a polling place and registering to vote?
You are cray.


----------



## OldLady

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support people who are harboring criminals?
Click to expand...

Where the fuck did you get that from?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OldLady said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support people who are harboring criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where the fuck did you get that from?
Click to expand...


   It's pretty obvious.


----------



## OldLady

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support people who are harboring criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where the fuck did you get that from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Sorry.  You're going to have to do better than that, making that kind of accusation for absolutely no reason.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

OldLady said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support people who are harboring criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where the fuck did you get that from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry.  You're going to have to do better than that, making that kind of accusation for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...


   You just said you were concerned about the rights of Legals harboring illegals and they should get representation just because they're married.
     Neither should have a say since they're both lawbreakers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

We know for a fact that the citizenship question was included in bad faith and in an effort to undercount minority communities because the Trump administration couldn’t care less about enforcing Voting Rights Act provisions protecting minorities from discrimination, where Trump has pursued a comprehensive agenda seeking to discriminate against minorities.


----------



## WillowTree

OldLady said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2020 Census had this question  ("Is this person a citizen of the United States?) added by the Trump Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop with the they can’t vote bullshit! If they can cross the border illegally, falseify records, steal ID they can fucking vote. Remember the illegal who murdered Mollie Tibet’s? He did all of the above! Next stupid utterance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think they are going to take unnecessary risks of being caught by walking into a polling place and registering to vote?
> You are cray.
Click to expand...

No ewe are! What part of they steal ID fucking escapes ewe?


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillowTree said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop with the they can’t vote bullshit! If they can cross the border illegally, falseify records, steal ID they can fucking vote. Remember the illegal who murdered Mollie Tibet’s? He did all of the above! Next stupid utterance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think they are going to take unnecessary risks of being caught by walking into a polling place and registering to vote?
> You are cray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No ewe are! What part of they steal ID fucking escapes ewe?
Click to expand...


Loser


----------



## WillowTree

Wry Catcher said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop with the they can’t vote bullshit! If they can cross the border illegally, falseify records, steal ID they can fucking vote. Remember the illegal who murdered Mollie Tibet’s? He did all of the above! Next stupid utterance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think they are going to take unnecessary risks of being caught by walking into a polling place and registering to vote?
> You are cray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No ewe are! What part of they steal ID fucking escapes ewe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loser
Click to expand...

Liar!


----------



## Wry Catcher

HereWeGoAgain said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support people who are harboring criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where the fuck did you get that from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...


*What is obvious is that there is no evidence to support this allegation*: 

_"A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests"_


----------



## Wry Catcher

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised they stopped it.  I had read awhile ago that it was a done deal, couldn't be taken off the form at this point.
> 
> It would have caused people to lie or avoid the census altogether.  Less accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by getting represented?
> 
> Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?
> 
> That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on the School Board.
> 
> It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.
> 
> Q.  Why
> 
> A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By population obviously.
> The more constituents the more representation they get regardless of political persuasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see (what you meant), so you believe and want others to believe CA population has exploded with alien residents, who all vote and who all are Democrats.
> 
> Fake news my friend, very fake indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news my ass.
> You're the ones claiming you're going to turn Texas into a blue state via immigration ya jizz pot.
Click to expand...


  First of all I haven't made that claim, Texas is already divided; 2nd, immigration includes American's from other states, reducing the demographic (big hat, no cattle) percentage and; 3rd, "jizz pot" is a vulgar and childish comment.  In Conclusion, you post is a clear and concise evidence you are a bigot - both the racist and homophobic variety.  In short, a Rube.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Wry Catcher said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should illegals get representation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by getting represented?
> 
> Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?
> 
> That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on the School Board.
> 
> It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.
> 
> Q.  Why
> 
> A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By population obviously.
> The more constituents the more representation they get regardless of political persuasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see (what you meant), so you believe and want others to believe CA population has exploded with alien residents, who all vote and who all are Democrats.
> 
> Fake news my friend, very fake indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news my ass.
> You're the ones claiming you're going to turn Texas into a blue state via immigration ya jizz pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I haven't made that claim, Texas is already divided; 2nd, immigration includes American's from other states, reducing the demographic (big hat, no cattle) percentage and; 3rd, "jizz pot" is a vulgar and childish comment.  In Conclusion, you post is a clear and concise evidence you are a bigot - both the racist and homophobic variety.  In short, a Rube.
Click to expand...


   Bullshit.
There have been a shitload of threads on this board about that very topic.
    Cum dumpster.


----------



## Wry Catcher

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by getting represented?
> 
> Are you suggesting alien's residing in CA vote, and that vote gives CA an unfair advantage and more members in the H. or Rep.?
> 
> That's wrong, though you may be confused since alien's whose children attend the public school in San Francisco are able to vote on the School Board.
> 
> It is up to The Congress to pass an immigration bill which they did not do when they were the majority in both houses.
> 
> Q.  Why
> 
> A.  The GOP wins voters' on wedge issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By population obviously.
> The more constituents the more representation they get regardless of political persuasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see (what you meant), so you believe and want others to believe CA population has exploded with alien residents, who all vote and who all are Democrats.
> 
> Fake news my friend, very fake indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news my ass.
> You're the ones claiming you're going to turn Texas into a blue state via immigration ya jizz pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I haven't made that claim, Texas is already divided; 2nd, immigration includes American's from other states, reducing the demographic (big hat, no cattle) percentage and; 3rd, "jizz pot" is a vulgar and childish comment.  In Conclusion, you post is a clear and concise evidence you are a bigot - both the racist and homophobic variety.  In short, a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> There have been a shitload of threads on this board about that very topic.
> Cum dumpster.
Click to expand...


Seems you can't read and comprehend what you posted.  Likely you were home schooled and/or attend school in rural Texas.

Your comments (Cum dumpster, jizz pot) are childish insults even a second grader of normal intelligence wouldn't use in any communication.  It shows you lack the ability to write an expository response to, and react emotionally, when your reality is exposed as a fiction.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Wry Catcher said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> By population obviously.
> The more constituents the more representation they get regardless of political persuasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see (what you meant), so you believe and want others to believe CA population has exploded with alien residents, who all vote and who all are Democrats.
> 
> Fake news my friend, very fake indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news my ass.
> You're the ones claiming you're going to turn Texas into a blue state via immigration ya jizz pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I haven't made that claim, Texas is already divided; 2nd, immigration includes American's from other states, reducing the demographic (big hat, no cattle) percentage and; 3rd, "jizz pot" is a vulgar and childish comment.  In Conclusion, you post is a clear and concise evidence you are a bigot - both the racist and homophobic variety.  In short, a Rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> There have been a shitload of threads on this board about that very topic.
> Cum dumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you can't read and comprehend what you posted.  Likely you were home schooled and/or attend school in rural Texas.
> 
> Your comments (Cum dumpster, jizz pot) are childish insults even a second grader of normal intelligence wouldn't use in any communication.  It shows you lack the ability to write an expository response to, and react emotionally, when your reality is exposed as a fiction.
Click to expand...


   I like how upset it makes you.


----------



## Cosmos

Obviously, with so many illegal aliens in the country the question of citizenship must be asked.  If we deported all the illegal aliens, then you can remove the question.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Cosmos said:


> Obviously, with so many illegal aliens in the country the question of citizenship must be asked.  If we deported all the illegal aliens, then you can remove the question.


The democrat Party would never win another election


----------



## Anathema

Hell No!!!!!!

In fact I believe that the Census should require copies of long form birth certificates and social security cards for every citizen in the family.


----------



## Unkotare

Lots of local census forms ask the same question.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> Hell No!!!!!!
> 
> In fact I believe that the Census should require copies of long form birth certificates and social security cards for every citizen in the family.


Some people don't have and can't get those.


----------



## Anathema

Jarlaxle said:


> Some people don't have and can't get those.



If they cannot prove beyond any doubt who they are they shouldn’t be here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If we're not counting citizens, what's the point of having a census?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people don't have and can't get those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they cannot prove beyond any doubt who they are they shouldn’t be here.
Click to expand...

Do you or do you not understand the many situations where a birth certificate is no accessible, or even does not exist? (My grandmother never had one.)


----------



## CrusaderFrank

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> We know for a fact that the citizenship question was included in bad faith and in an effort to undercount minority communities because the Trump administration couldn’t care less about enforcing Voting Rights Act provisions protecting minorities from discrimination, where Trump has pursued a comprehensive agenda seeking to discriminate against minorities.


Bad faith for 200 years? Really?


----------



## Anathema

Jarlaxle said:


> Do you or do you not understand the many situations where a birth certificate is no accessible, or even does not exist? (My grandmother never had one.)



I understand that there are a small number of situations where one may not be easy to acquire. I find no situation where one shouldn't be able to be acquired. Even home births have had to be registered for many decades now. A small percentage of the aged and no longer useful may not be able to get one. We'd be better off without them to begin with.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you or do you not understand the many situations where a birth certificate is not accessible, or even does not exist? (My grandmother never had one.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that there are a small number of situations where one may not be easy to acquire. I find no situation where one shouldn't be able to be acquired. Even home births have had to be registered for many decades now. A small percentage of the aged and no longer useful may not be able to get one. We'd be better off without them to begin with.
Click to expand...


My grandmother had none. (None of my grandparents did, as I recall.)  My uncle had one-and, fortunately, has a copy because he was getting a passport-but he and a few thousand others can no longer get another copy because the original was destroyed. (The county records burned.)  My wife's is in Havana. I know someone whose birth certificate is sealed by court order. (She's adopted.)  My sister doesn't HAVE a regular birth certificate, she has a CRBA.  I work with someone whose original was lost in hurricane Andrew.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

The primary purpose of the census,as established in the Constitution, is to establish populations, in order to establish the number of representatives for each state in the House of Representatives, and the number of members of the Electoral College.

  For this purpose, only a count of citizens would be valid.  Foreigners—whether here legally or otherwise—are not entitled to representation in Congress nor in the Electoral College, and should not be counted for that purpose.

  There are credible estimates that California has as many as nine extra members of Congress, and nine Electoral votes, due to illegal aliens being improperly counted and included in the census.  This has the effect of completely disenfranchising several of the smaller states, and amounts to a serious corruption of our electoral system.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Wry Catcher said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see why it would be on there. i also see why it shouldnt be on there. I dont give a shit either way
> I think some of the arguments against it are bogus though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, I offered two.  Can you deny either one of them is not a valid and sound premise?
Click to expand...




Wry Catcher said:


> Clearly, to allow this question to be asked, will have two negative effects.
> 
> Most households with a non citizen will not fill out and send in the census;
> It puts a target on the back for ICE, and they can make a case for a warrant to detain the named person.
> In terms of #1, it will have an effect on revenue sharing, in terms of #2 it will allow ICE to establish dragnets (consider the use of DNA, not used used in terms of this tread) to detain thousands of law abiding non citizens and separate a parent from their children.



  Assuming that the noncitizen in question is here legally, I see no reason for either of these concerns.

  If one is here illegally, then why do you have a problem with #2, with the authorities being alerted so that this criminal invader may be removed from our country?  Are you on the side of the American people, or are you on the side of invading foreign criminals?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Billy_Kinetta said:


> BlackFag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was removed in the first place because it reduces accuracy which is the whole point of the census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does more information reduce accuracy?
Click to expand...


Left *wrong*-wing logic.

  It's rather like the infamous Orwellian triplet…


_“War is peace!”_
_“Slavery is freedom!”_
_“Ignorance is strength!”_


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OldLady said:


> *The census is used for a lot of other things beside electoral slots.* The number of people in a given area need to be counted.
> There are other ways to fix the illegal problem.  Ignoring them on the census is not one of them.



  That is its primary purpose.  That is *THE* purpose for which the Constitution mandates the census.  Nothing about any other purposes for which census data might be used justifies anything that would undermine this primary purpose.  The census *must* provide an accurate count of *citizens* in each state, or else the whole electoral system is compromised.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

WillowTree said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, even though they can't vote, they still live there.  A big fat chunk of a politician's constituency in California has voters married to illegals and the children of illegals and etc. etc.  So they are representing their people's interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop with the they can’t vote bullshit! If they can cross the border illegally, falseify records, steal ID they can fucking vote. Remember the illegal who murdered Mollie Tibet’s? He did all of the above! Next stupid utterance?
Click to expand...


  Look up how Loretta Sanchez, back in 1996, defeated incumbent Bob Dornan, to win a seat in Congress.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> We know for a fact that the citizenship question was included in bad faith and in an effort to undercount minority communities because the Trump administration couldn’t care less about enforcing Voting Rights Act provisions protecting minorities from discrimination, where Trump has pursued a comprehensive agenda seeking to discriminate against minorities.



  Who do you really think you're fooling, here?  Every sane person, reading your post,knows that what you mean by _“minorities”_ is invading foreign criminals, who have no legitimate right to vote, who have no legitimate right even to be here; and yet you condemn us for not wanting them to have the political representation that they clearly are not entitled to.

  It's funny that your side accuses Mr. Trump of allowing foreign interference in our elections, based on dodgy, vapid conspiracy theories about Russia, while your side openly encourages foreign interference in our elections by and on behalf of invading foreign criminals from Mexico and beyond.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Cosmos said:


> Obviously, with so many illegal aliens in the country the question of citizenship must be asked.  If we deported all the illegal aliens, then you can remove the question.



  We would still have foreigners who are in our country legally.  Even though they are allowed to be here, they still are not entitled to representation in Congress nor in the Electoral College; and must be excluded from census counts used for this purpose.


----------



## MindWars

*A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census




This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

MindWars said:


> *A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
> It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.


Beginning of the end of the cheato-crat Party


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Why were democrats fighting this?


----------



## OldLady

A couple weeks ago, the headline was that the Courts had STOPPED the question from being on the census.  So what is this, a battle between the courts now?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why were democrats fighting this?


They obviously like flooding the nation with compliant less than bright non citizens.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

They also said that an accurate voter base was to be avoided as it presented an "existential threat" to their unAmerican, Fascist Party.


----------



## MindWars

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why were democrats fighting this?



Was that a serious question? " why were democrats fighting for this?"


----------



## AvgGuyIA

MindWars said:


> *A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
> It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.


Seems a reasonable question to ask.  How many are not citizens.  The count should not help determine how many Congressmen should be allocated to a State.  Perhaps, with all the illegals in California, the number of Reps will be reduced.


----------



## BlackFlag

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why were democrats fighting this?


Because it was proven flawed decades ago


----------



## OldLady

MindWars said:


> *A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
> It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.


I googled it and found no news, breaking or otherwise, since Jan. 16.  The question is going to the Supreme Court on Feb 19. 

Judge bars Trump administration from adding citizenship question to 2020 Census


----------



## BlackFlag

OldLady said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
> It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it and found no news, breaking or otherwise, since Jan. 16.  The question is going to the Supreme Court on Feb 19.
> 
> Judge bars Trump administration from adding citizenship question to 2020 Census
Click to expand...

Gateway Pundit is a conservative trash site


----------



## MindWars

OldLady said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
> It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it and found no news, breaking or otherwise, since Jan. 16.  The question is going to the Supreme Court on Feb 19.
> 
> Judge bars Trump administration from adding citizenship question to 2020 Census
Click to expand...


Guess you didn't search well enough nor use the correct terms.


----------



## OldLady

STILL no explanation for how two courts holding opposing opinions and a pending SC hearing in a week gives you some kind of "win." 

And thanks a big bunch for the link (not).


----------



## Darkwind

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why were democrats fighting this?


Congressional seats are determined by the number of people in a state.  If they don't have to enforce the fact that the people need to be citizens, they can get additional seats that will always go to them in the House.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

OldLady said:


> And thanks a big bunch for the link (not).


Apparently you like to be informed (not).


----------



## The Purge

The far left has been “triggered”. Now they start their Nazi style death threats. It appears the “demonRATS" don’t want their “11 million” number going in the toilet and the true numbers of illegals aliens coming out.


----------



## justoffal

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why were democrats fighting this?



This will be a fast track location technique
For ICE.... That's why.

Jo


----------



## RealDave

MindWars said:


> *A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
> It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.



Republicans cheating.  No surprise there.


----------



## Rustic

BlackFlag said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were democrats fighting this?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was proven flawed decades ago
Click to expand...

Lol
Boy, 
You Can take your illegal aliens and shove them up your fucking ass because they have no rights you motherfucking retard


----------



## Rustic

RealDave said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A federal judge ruled on Friday the US government can include citizenship question on the US Census.
> It makes complete sense so Democrats are against it.*
> BREAKING: Federal Judge Declines to Block Citizenship Question from US 2020 Census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it democrats are against it that must make it a wonderful move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans cheating.  No surprise there.
Click to expand...

You can shove your illegal aliens up your ass


----------



## MindWars

OldLady said:


> STILL no explanation for how two courts holding opposing opinions and a pending SC hearing in a week gives you some kind of "win."
> 
> And thanks a big bunch for the link (not).


It's the America you wanted " NO DUE PROCESS"  land of leftist Trump hating morons the loss of due process started back during Bush and that a.holes  NDAA act, etc.


----------



## OldLady

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks a big bunch for the link (not).
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you like to be informed (not).
Click to expand...

I believe I am informed.


----------



## White_MAGA_Man

Not surprised this judge made such an idiotic ruling. After all, he was appointed by a non-citizen president.

Obama Judge: "Including Citizenship Question On The Census Is Fundamentally Counterproductive To The Goal Of Obtaining Accurate Citizenship Data"


----------



## JGalt

The Supreme Court will knock that judge's dick in the dirt.


----------



## Fang

White_MAGA_Man said:


> Not surprised this judge made such an idiotic ruling. After all, he was appointed by a non-citizen president.
> 
> Obama Judge: "Including Citizenship Question On The Census Is Fundamentally Counterproductive To The Goal Of Obtaining Accurate Citizenship Data"



Stunning how out of touch and political a "judge" can be.


----------



## easyt65

It is obvious that in an attempt to protect illegals / criminals and keep hidden from the American people just how many illegals we now have in our country, Obama / Liberal Judges  have declared the United States, as a sovereign nation, does not have either the RIGHT or the Need-To-Know just how many illegals there are in this country.


----------



## Jackson

White_MAGA_Man said:


> Not surprised this judge made such an idiotic ruling. After all, he was appointed by a non-citizen president.
> 
> Obama Judge: "Including Citizenship Question On The Census Is Fundamentally Counterproductive To The Goal Of Obtaining Accurate Citizenship Data"


That does not make sense.  It's an oxymoron from an imbecile judge.


----------



## BlackFlag

There’s a reason they removed the question in the 1st place.


----------



## Defiant1

BlackFlag said:


> There’s a reason they removed the question in the 1st place.




Oh yes because there's nobody who wants or needs to know how many American citizens live in the US.


----------



## DGS49

Well, it's not a simple question.  Article One speaks of the enumeration of the number of "free persons" - not citizens - for the various purposes stated.  So, presumably, the census should count all "free persons" and not just citizens and legal residents.

It goes without saying that in the Age of Trump, there would be people in the country illegally, who, looking at the survey and seeing a Citizenship question, will either decline to fill it out or limit their response to those in that household who are in the country legally, if any.

Presumably, in California and other states with large populations of people who are not in the country legally, the enumeration will fall short of the actual number.  Those affected states complain that, since the USSC has decreed - insanely, in my opinion - that those states must feed, house, clothe, medicate, and educate the children of those in the country illegally, the same as if they were fine upstanding citizens, they will lose out on not only Congressional representation (each H.R. seat being allocated to populations of 750,000 or so) but also Federal largesse that is passed out on the basis of population.

So we have the bizarre situation where these states generally identify themselves as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, where they decline to help the Feds enforce our existing immigration laws, and hence ENCOURAGE illegal intrusions into our country, and now want to insist that all of their illegals be COUNTED when they stand at the capacious teats of the Federal Government.  [In California, anyway, where many of them VOTE and some pay taxes, I suppose this makes some perverse sense].

*I would not BET on the USSC siding with the Government here.  They may find that the citizenship question will impede the purpose of the census.*

In my own silly opinion, I want the Gub'mint to FINALLY know and PUBLISH the actual number of illegals, so that the Media and the Leftists will get off this bullshit ELEVEN MILLION number that they have been claiming for more than a decade, and we can recognize the REAL number which is AT LEAST TWENTY MILLION.


----------



## Erinwltr

DGS49 said:


> Well, it's not a simple question.  Article One speaks of the enumeration of the number of "free persons" - not citizens - for the various purposes stated.  So, presumably, the census should count all "free persons" and not just citizens and legal residents.
> 
> It goes without saying that in the Age of Trump, there would be people in the country illegally, who, looking at the survey and seeing a Citizenship question, will either decline to fill it out or limit their response to those in that household who are in the country legally, if any.
> 
> Presumably, in California and other states with large populations of people who are not in the country legally, the enumeration will fall short of the actual number.  Those affected states complain that, since the USSC has decreed - insanely, in my opinion - that those states must feed, house, clothe, medicate, and educate the children of those in the country illegally, the same as if they were fine upstanding citizens, they will lose out on not only Congressional representation (each H.R. seat being allocated to populations of 750,000 or so) but also Federal largesse that is passed out on the basis of population.
> 
> So we have the bizarre situation where these states generally identify themselves as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, where they decline to help the Feds enforce our existing immigration laws, and hence ENCOURAGE illegal intrusions into our country, and now want to insist that all of their illegals be COUNTED when they stand at the capacious teats of the Federal Government.  [In California, anyway, where many of them VOTE and some pay taxes, I suppose this makes some perverse sense].
> 
> *I would not BET on the USSC siding with the Government here.  They may find that the citizenship question will impede the purpose of the census.*
> 
> In my own silly opinion, I want the Gub'mint to FINALLY know and PUBLISH the actual number of illegals, so that the Media and the Leftists will get off this bullshit ELEVEN MILLION number that they have been claiming for more than a decade, and we can recognize the REAL number which is AT LEAST TWENTY MILLION.


Just curious where you get the 20 million number from?


----------



## OldLady

Defiant1 said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a reason they removed the question in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes because there's nobody who wants or needs to know how many American citizens live in the US.
Click to expand...

_The Justice Department sought to include the question because it uses data about eligible voters – the citizen voting-age population – to help enforce protections for minority voters (including those who speak languages other than English) under the federal Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department now relies on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a sample survey that covers 2.6% of the population each year. The department wants more “scope, detail and certainty” that only the full census can provide to enforce the Voting Rights Act, Ross said._

This is the biggest load of codswallop I've heard in awhile.  The Justice Department has no need to delve into voting data; that's as political as it gets.
The question however, is not that alarming.





The citizenship question planned for 2020 census: What to know
There are plenty of noncitizens here LEGALLY.  However, illegal immigrants, who make up a large portion of some cities and counties, will probably shy away from taking the census at all or will lie, afraid the government may take that information and start using it for other purposes, like deporting them.


----------



## Defiant1

OldLady said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a reason they removed the question in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes because there's nobody who wants or needs to know how many American citizens live in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The Justice Department sought to include the question because it uses data about eligible voters – the citizen voting-age population – to help enforce protections for minority voters (including those who speak languages other than English) under the federal Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department now relies on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a sample survey that covers 2.6% of the population each year. The department wants more “scope, detail and certainty” that only the full census can provide to enforce the Voting Rights Act, Ross said._
> 
> This is the biggest load of codswallop I've heard in awhile.  The Justice Department has no need to delve into voting data; that's as political as it gets.
> The question however, is not that alarming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citizenship question planned for 2020 census: What to know
> There are plenty of noncitizens here LEGALLY.  However, illegal immigrants, who make up a large portion of some cities and counties, will probably shy away from taking the census at all or will lie, afraid the government may take that information and start using it for other purposes, like deporting them.
Click to expand...



Who are you to say what data the justice department needs?
Why wouldn't we want to get information on illegals so we can deport them?


----------



## OldLady

Defiant1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a reason they removed the question in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes because there's nobody who wants or needs to know how many American citizens live in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The Justice Department sought to include the question because it uses data about eligible voters – the citizen voting-age population – to help enforce protections for minority voters (including those who speak languages other than English) under the federal Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department now relies on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a sample survey that covers 2.6% of the population each year. The department wants more “scope, detail and certainty” that only the full census can provide to enforce the Voting Rights Act, Ross said._
> 
> This is the biggest load of codswallop I've heard in awhile.  The Justice Department has no need to delve into voting data; that's as political as it gets.
> The question however, is not that alarming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citizenship question planned for 2020 census: What to know
> There are plenty of noncitizens here LEGALLY.  However, illegal immigrants, who make up a large portion of some cities and counties, will probably shy away from taking the census at all or will lie, afraid the government may take that information and start using it for other purposes, like deporting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to say what data the justice department needs?
> Why wouldn't we want to get information on illegals so we can deport them?
Click to expand...

Last I knew the DOJ has no involvement in the political arena.  If they are collecting information on "voters," it smacks of politics to me.  Unless they're are just lying and are collecting the information for other reasons.


----------



## Jackson

Defiant1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a reason they removed the question in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes because there's nobody who wants or needs to know how many American citizens live in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The Justice Department sought to include the question because it uses data about eligible voters – the citizen voting-age population – to help enforce protections for minority voters (including those who speak languages other than English) under the federal Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department now relies on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a sample survey that covers 2.6% of the population each year. The department wants more “scope, detail and certainty” that only the full census can provide to enforce the Voting Rights Act, Ross said._
> 
> This is the biggest load of codswallop I've heard in awhile.  The Justice Department has no need to delve into voting data; that's as political as it gets.
> The question however, is not that alarming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citizenship question planned for 2020 census: What to know
> There are plenty of noncitizens here LEGALLY.  However, illegal immigrants, who make up a large portion of some cities and counties, will probably shy away from taking the census at all or will lie, afraid the government may take that information and start using it for other purposes, like deporting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to say what data the justice department needs?
> Why wouldn't we want to get information on illegals so we can deport them?
Click to expand...

Or get information about them to determine* if they should *be deported.


----------



## Defiant1

Jackson said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a reason they removed the question in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes because there's nobody who wants or needs to know how many American citizens live in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The Justice Department sought to include the question because it uses data about eligible voters – the citizen voting-age population – to help enforce protections for minority voters (including those who speak languages other than English) under the federal Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department now relies on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a sample survey that covers 2.6% of the population each year. The department wants more “scope, detail and certainty” that only the full census can provide to enforce the Voting Rights Act, Ross said._
> 
> This is the biggest load of codswallop I've heard in awhile.  The Justice Department has no need to delve into voting data; that's as political as it gets.
> The question however, is not that alarming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citizenship question planned for 2020 census: What to know
> There are plenty of noncitizens here LEGALLY.  However, illegal immigrants, who make up a large portion of some cities and counties, will probably shy away from taking the census at all or will lie, afraid the government may take that information and start using it for other purposes, like deporting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to say what data the justice department needs?
> Why wouldn't we want to get information on illegals so we can deport them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or get information about them to determine* if they should *be deported.
Click to expand...



The census data will be released in early '21, just after Trump's second inauguration. I'm hoping Trump will authorize a program to round them up. It will require 10s of thousands of bounty hunters. 

I'm getting ready.


----------



## DGS49

Erinwltr said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a simple question.  Article One speaks of the enumeration of the number of "free persons" - not citizens - for the various purposes stated.  So, presumably, the census should count all "free persons" and not just citizens and legal residents.
> 
> It goes without saying that in the Age of Trump, there would be people in the country illegally, who, looking at the survey and seeing a Citizenship question, will either decline to fill it out or limit their response to those in that household who are in the country legally, if any.
> 
> Presumably, in California and other states with large populations of people who are not in the country legally, the enumeration will fall short of the actual number.  Those affected states complain that, since the USSC has decreed - insanely, in my opinion - that those states must feed, house, clothe, medicate, and educate the children of those in the country illegally, the same as if they were fine upstanding citizens, they will lose out on not only Congressional representation (each H.R. seat being allocated to populations of 750,000 or so) but also Federal largesse that is passed out on the basis of population.
> 
> So we have the bizarre situation where these states generally identify themselves as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, where they decline to help the Feds enforce our existing immigration laws, and hence ENCOURAGE illegal intrusions into our country, and now want to insist that all of their illegals be COUNTED when they stand at the capacious teats of the Federal Government.  [In California, anyway, where many of them VOTE and some pay taxes, I suppose this makes some perverse sense].
> 
> *I would not BET on the USSC siding with the Government here.  They may find that the citizenship question will impede the purpose of the census.*
> 
> In my own silly opinion, I want the Gub'mint to FINALLY know and PUBLISH the actual number of illegals, so that the Media and the Leftists will get off this bullshit ELEVEN MILLION number that they have been claiming for more than a decade, and we can recognize the REAL number which is AT LEAST TWENTY MILLION.
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious where you get the 20 million number from?
Click to expand...


----------



## DGS49

Start with eleven million in 2007.  There have been at leqsy 800,000 new illegals crossing the border each year since then.  All of the females are of child-bearing age, and essentially all are Catholic.  Do the math.

While the offspring are technically considered "Americans," they are no less sucking the lifeblood of the country, what with education costs, welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

20 million is a low estimate.


----------



## Erinwltr

DGS49 said:


> Start with eleven million in 2007.  There have been at leqsy 800,000 new illegals crossing the border each year since then.  All of the females are of child-bearing age, and essentially all are Catholic.  Do the math.
> 
> While the offspring are technically considered "Americans," they are no less sucking the lifeblood of the country, what with education costs, welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.
> 
> 20 million is a low estimate.


What is your source for those numbers?  I'm not trolling, I'm just curious.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Third judge blocks citizenship question from 2020 census

U.S. District Judge George Hazel in Maryland wrote that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's decision to add the question to the census was arbitrary and capricious, therefore violating federal law.

Hazel is one of Obammy’s judges. The Democrats want to count non-citizens because it gets them more congressional seats and it gives them more money. The Democrats are not compassionate. They are racist. They are trying to displace Anglo voters.


----------



## Zorro!

*Let’s finish the debate over the citizenship question on the census*





SCOTUS seems to approve

One of the problems for these obstructionist judges is that the citizenship question has been asked of tens of millions of Americans every ten years since before most of you were born.

The Supremes heard oral arguments in the case and the general consensus seems to be that we’re heading for yet another Trump win.  

Dems fear that illegal immigrants may not return the forms for fear of being detected, detained and deported. So they want to create policy based on the suspicion that a person who is in the process of breaking one law (being in the country illegally) may then break another law (filling out and returning the form is mandatory under the law) by throwing out their census form. Is this seriously how we’re going to be making policy now? On the basis of not wanting to offend criminals?

With the exception of 1960, we’ve been asking the citizenship question to as many as fifty million people every time we do the census. (And yes, that includes 2010 because we swapped out the long form for the American Community Survey that year and it included the citizenship question.) The odds that none of the households receiving those forms included illegal aliens is effectively zero. So why aren’t we in court battling to eliminate the long form and/or the American Community Survey? Those forms ask far more intrusive questions of all sorts, including the citizenship question.

I’ll tell you why. Because nobody cared about it until a change was requested by the administration of the Bad Orange Man. But since he was the one making the latest change, it had to be #RESISTED. This isn’t a question of constitutionality or even accuracy in the census. It’s just more politics.


----------

