Does Pelosi Think Majority of American Voters Believe This?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You mean your interpretation.

No, I mean the words. And the way we have been doing it all along are just what the words tell us to do. Don't like it, change it. Just don't shit on it.

It had been a question on the census for a very long time previously. Why would it be a problem now? Other than democrats padding their congressional seats.

Well, since seats in the House are based upon both citizens and non-citizens, it would not change that at all.

What makes you think it includes or should include both? These people aren’t citizens and can be deported at any time meaning their presence here is strictly a failure of the government to remove them. Why would they deserve to have representation in the same government that has the legal standing to deport them?

It includes both because the Constitution says it does.

Also, the Fed Govt says it includes both.

Congressional Apportionment - Frequently Asked Questions - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Who is included in the apportionment population counts?

The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states. In the 2010 Census, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state.

But the Constitution says "excluding Indians not taxed" which is exactly what an illegal from south of our border is. An untaxed Indian. They should not count.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Because the word "Indian" coined by Columbus referred to all new-world natives, including the people he "discovered" in Central and South America, they are ALL "Indians" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2.

Because 99% of illegals are of "Indian" decent and, as illegals, are NOT taxed under Art. 1, Sec. 2 or the subsequent 16th Amendment, they qualify as "Indians not taxed" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2, and therefore DO NOT COUNT!!!

I don't give a rat fuck if Texas loses a few EVs. California will lose a SHIT TON more. They have at least 10 million illegals.

Don't like it?

Amend!!!


.

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But the Constitution says "excluding Indians not taxed" which is exactly what an illegal from south of our border is. An untaxed Indian. They should not count.

.

How do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer | Bipartisan Policy Center

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because the word "Indian" coined by Columbus referred to all new-world natives, including the people he "discovered" in Central and South America, they are ALL "Indians" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2.

Because 99% of illegals are of "Indian" decent and, as illegals, are NOT taxed under Art. 1, Sec. 2 or the subsequent 16th Amendment, they qualify as "Indians not taxed" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2, and therefore DO NOT COUNT!!!

I don't give a rat fuck if Texas loses a few EVs. California will lose a SHIT TON more. They have at least 10 million illegals.

Don't like it?

Amend!!!


.

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Because the word "Indian" coined by Columbus referred to all new-world natives, including the people he "discovered" in Central and South America, they are ALL "Indians" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2.

Because 99% of illegals are of "Indian" decent and, as illegals, are NOT taxed under Art. 1, Sec. 2 or the subsequent 16th Amendment, they qualify as "Indians not taxed" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2, and therefore DO NOT COUNT!!!

I don't give a rat fuck if Texas loses a few EVs. California will lose a SHIT TON more. They have at least 10 million illegals.

Don't like it?

Amend!!!


.

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But the Constitution says "excluding Indians not taxed" which is exactly what an illegal from south of our border is. An untaxed Indian. They should not count.

.

How do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer | Bipartisan Policy Center

If they are paying taxes, they get counted.



.

 

[Indeependent]

But the Constitution says "excluding Indians not taxed" which is exactly what an illegal from south of our border is. An untaxed Indian. They should not count.

.

How do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer | Bipartisan Policy Center

Suddenly, GG accepts anecdotal evidence!

 

[Indeependent]

But the Constitution says "excluding Indians not taxed" which is exactly what an illegal from south of our border is. An untaxed Indian. They should not count.

.

How do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer | Bipartisan Policy Center

If they are paying taxes, they get counted.



.

Read the article...it’s based on anecdotal evidence that GG rejects as evidence at his convenience.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because the word "Indian" coined by Columbus referred to all new-world natives, including the people he "discovered" in Central and South America, they are ALL "Indians" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2.

Because 99% of illegals are of "Indian" decent and, as illegals, are NOT taxed under Art. 1, Sec. 2 or the subsequent 16th Amendment, they qualify as "Indians not taxed" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2, and therefore DO NOT COUNT!!!

I don't give a rat fuck if Texas loses a few EVs. California will lose a SHIT TON more. They have at least 10 million illegals.

Don't like it?

Amend!!!


.

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

 

[my2¢]

Does Pelosi Think....

You could have stopped right there.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Because the word "Indian" coined by Columbus referred to all new-world natives, including the people he "discovered" in Central and South America, they are ALL "Indians" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2.

Because 99% of illegals are of "Indian" decent and, as illegals, are NOT taxed under Art. 1, Sec. 2 or the subsequent 16th Amendment, they qualify as "Indians not taxed" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2, and therefore DO NOT COUNT!!!

I don't give a rat fuck if Texas loses a few EVs. California will lose a SHIT TON more. They have at least 10 million illegals.

Don't like it?

Amend!!!


.

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because the word "Indian" coined by Columbus referred to all new-world natives, including the people he "discovered" in Central and South America, they are ALL "Indians" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2.

Because 99% of illegals are of "Indian" decent and, as illegals, are NOT taxed under Art. 1, Sec. 2 or the subsequent 16th Amendment, they qualify as "Indians not taxed" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2, and therefore DO NOT COUNT!!!

I don't give a rat fuck if Texas loses a few EVs. California will lose a SHIT TON more. They have at least 10 million illegals.

Don't like it?

Amend!!!


.

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

Good point.

We also need to ask if they are illegal.

And there is a proper purpose.

If it has a chilling effect, SO BE IT!!!

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because the word "Indian" coined by Columbus referred to all new-world natives, including the people he "discovered" in Central and South America, they are ALL "Indians" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2.

Because 99% of illegals are of "Indian" decent and, as illegals, are NOT taxed under Art. 1, Sec. 2 or the subsequent 16th Amendment, they qualify as "Indians not taxed" within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 2, and therefore DO NOT COUNT!!!

I don't give a rat fuck if Texas loses a few EVs. California will lose a SHIT TON more. They have at least 10 million illegals.

Don't like it?

Amend!!!


.

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

I guess we also need all people answering the census to provide proof of legal residency, just to make sure we get the census right and the proper count.



.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

Good point.

We also need to ask if they are illegal.

And there is a proper purpose.

If it has a chilling effect, SO BE IT!!!

.

you might want to fire off a tweet to Trump and let him know, because the question he is asking does not differentiate

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

I guess we also need all people answering the census to provide proof of legal residency, just to make sure we get the census right and the proper count.



.

Which would increase the cost of the Census 10 fold, at a minimum.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

Good point.

We also need to ask if they are illegal.

And there is a proper purpose.

If it has a chilling effect, SO BE IT!!!

.

you might want to fire off a tweet to Trump and let him know, because the question he is asking does not differentiate

That jackass would never listen to me.

He is going to fuck this up. Watch.

.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You mean your interpretation.

No, I mean the words. And the way we have been doing it all along are just what the words tell us to do. Don't like it, change it. Just don't shit on it.

It had been a question on the census for a very long time previously. Why would it be a problem now? Other than democrats padding their congressional seats.

Well, since seats in the House are based upon both citizens and non-citizens, it would not change that at all.

What makes you think it includes or should include both? These people aren’t citizens and can be deported at any time meaning their presence here is strictly a failure of the government to remove them. Why would they deserve to have representation in the same government that has the legal standing to deport them?

It includes both because the Constitution says it does.

Also, the Fed Govt says it includes both.

Congressional Apportionment - Frequently Asked Questions - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Who is included in the apportionment population counts?

The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states. In the 2010 Census, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state.

So that was the rule in 2010. Since when is 2010 the guide? It’s easy to change the guide lines. At least it should be. What is a non-citizen? Work visa or illegal? Green card or illegal? A legal immigrant not yet a full citizen or... an illegal. You’re reading non-citizen as any low life that jumped the border that is not a member of this country in any way shape or form and can as well as should be deported. A non-citizen doesn’t include anyone that shouldn’t be here to begin with.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

I guess we also need all people answering the census to provide proof of legal residency, just to make sure we get the census right and the proper count.



.

Which would increase the cost of the Census 10 fold, at a minimum.

I don't care how much it costs. It can't be ANYWHERE NEAR the cost of all those commies from Cali in congress.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, I mean the words. And the way we have been doing it all along are just what the words tell us to do. Don't like it, change it. Just don't shit on it.

It had been a question on the census for a very long time previously. Why would it be a problem now? Other than democrats padding their congressional seats.

Well, since seats in the House are based upon both citizens and non-citizens, it would not change that at all.

What makes you think it includes or should include both? These people aren’t citizens and can be deported at any time meaning their presence here is strictly a failure of the government to remove them. Why would they deserve to have representation in the same government that has the legal standing to deport them?

It includes both because the Constitution says it does.

Also, the Fed Govt says it includes both.

Congressional Apportionment - Frequently Asked Questions - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Who is included in the apportionment population counts?

The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states. In the 2010 Census, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state.

So that was the rule in 2010. Since when is 2010 the guide? It’s easy to change the guide lines. At least it should be. What is a non-citizen? Work visa or illegal? Green card or illegal? A legal immigrant not yet a full citizen or... an illegal. You’re reading non-citizen as any low life that jumped the border that is not a member of this country in any way shape or form and can as well as should be deported. A non-citizen doesn’t include anyone that shouldn’t be here to begin with.

THe rule they spoke of in 2010 is the way of counting the military, not the whole thing.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

One of the better arguments I have seen yet. Good luck getting that to be the accepted law of the land.

They can try to stop this if they want. They will fail.

.

Who is they and what are they stopping?

they = anyone wanting illegals to count
stopping = the census asking about citizenship for that purpose

.

Even if the question gets asked, they are not asking legal status. So you cannot differentiate between the legal non-citizens and the illegal ones using the census.

I guess we also need all people answering the census to provide proof of legal residency, just to make sure we get the census right and the proper count.



.

Use E-verify to send them out.