Majority Want Citizenship Question On Census, 53%-32%

[bripat9643]

No, you didn't answer it. You just made excuses for their behavior.

It's like you're saying the woman was raped because she wore a slutty dress.

Wrong. She was raped because some thug felt free to use force against other people.

you try so very hard and just fail time after time.

True, it's difficult to pound logic into your skull.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

And why were the Indians not included in the count?

It was because THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS. At the time, Indians were not considered citizens, and it really wasn't anticipated that there would be any significant number of other persons in the country that were not citizens, aside from slaves who fell under the Three Fifths compromise.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Democrats handed Trump even more votes.

Majority want citizenship question on census, 53%-32%

Open borders, No citizenship questions, no voter ID, it could not be more obvious what is going on here.

 

[bripat9643]

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

Well, the "whole" number would include everyone. Why is that so difficult for you? That is the way it has always been, this is not new.

Aside from Indians?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

And why were the Indians not included in the count?

It was because THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS. At he time, Indians were not considered citizens, and it really wasn't anticipated that there would be any significant number of other persons in the country that were not citizens, aside from slaves who fell under the Three Fifths compromise.

Except it was not all Indians, just the ones not taxed.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Illegal aliens have never been a significant problem in this country until quite recently, so why would it?

Because we have always had non-citizens living among us.

Very few.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

And why were the Indians not included in the count?

It was because THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS. At he time, Indians were not considered citizens, and it really wasn't anticipated that there would be any significant number of other persons in the country that were not citizens, aside from slaves who fell under the Three Fifths compromise.

Except it was not all Indians, just the ones not taxed.

Run Jakey run....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

Well, the "whole" number would include everyone. Why is that so difficult for you? That is the way it has always been, this is not new.

Aside from Indians?

yes. We are a country of immigrants, they did not become citizens the day they walked off the boat.

 

[bripat9643]

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

Well, the "whole" number would include everyone. Why is that so difficult for you? That is the way it has always been, this is not new.

Aside from Indians?

yes. We are a country of immigrants, they did not become citizens the day they walked off the boat.

Spare us the slogans.

 

[Faun]

More data points are a good thing.

I don't know the bullshit partisan political ramifications on this, and I don't care.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation in Congress.

Amazing you leftists are so ignorant of this basic fact.

LOLOL

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

It also counted black saves as 3/5 of a person. Is that what you're defending?

Holyfuckingshit!

No, ya fucking moron. I quoted the 14th Amendment which stipulates we count the "whole" number of "persons" with the only exception being Indians who are not taxed.

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

What part of "persons" don't you understand?

 

[Ambivalent1]

The purpose of the census is to determine representation in Congress.

Amazing you leftists are so ignorant of this basic fact.

LOLOL

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

It also counted black saves as 3/5 of a person. Is that what you're defending?

Holyfuckingshit!

No, ya fucking moron. I quoted the 14th Amendment which stipulates we count the "whole" number of "persons" with the only exception being Indians who are not taxed.

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

What part of "persons" don't you understand?

What part of context don't you understand?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

Well, the "whole" number would include everyone. Why is that so difficult for you? That is the way it has always been, this is not new.

Aside from Indians?

yes. We are a country of immigrants, they did not become citizens the day they walked off the boat.

Spare us the slogans.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is included in the apportionment population counts? back to top

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. This is the same procedure used in 2000.

Congressional Apportionment

 

[Faun]

More data points are a good thing.

I don't know the bullshit partisan political ramifications on this, and I don't care.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation in Congress.

Amazing you leftists are so ignorant of this basic fact.

LOLOL

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

It also counted black saves as 3/5 of a person. Is that what you're defending?

Holyfuckingshit!

No, ya fucking moron. I quoted the 14th Amendment which stipulates we count the "whole" number of "persons" with the only exception being Indians who are not taxed.

The 14th Amendment doesn't mention the census, moron.

Fucking moron, it mentions how we apportion the number of U.S. representatives in the House. Which blows up the moronic con argument in this thread that we should count non-U.S. citizens in the census for the purpose of apportioning U.S. representatives.

Don't you ever feel stupid for posting such fucking moronic nonsense?

 

[Faun]

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

And why were the Indians not included in the count?

It was because THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS. At the time, Indians were not considered citizens, and it really wasn't anticipated that there would be any significant number of other persons in the country that were not citizens, aside from slaves who fell under the Three Fifths compromise.

Dumbfuck, Indians who were taxed were counted; and until 1924, they were not U.S. citizens if they were born on an Indian reservation.

So yes, non-citizens are among the "persons" counted for apportioning representatives.

You brain-dead cultists have no fucking clue about civics.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

According to your poll, 49% think North Korea is our enemy, which begs the question, why is trump hanging around with our enemies?

There is a very big difference between adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and negotiating with them from a legitimate position of authority to do so, in order to try to mitigate the enmity between us and them.

If Mr. Trump was colluding and conspiring with North Korea to aid and abet acts of war on their part against the United States, as the Democrats are colluding and conspiring with foreign invaders crossing our southern border, then you might have a point.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

And why were the Indians not included in the count?

It was because THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS. At the time, Indians were not considered citizens, and it really wasn't anticipated that there would be any significant number of other persons in the country that were not citizens, aside from slaves who fell under the Three Fifths compromise.

Dumbfuck, Indians who were taxed were counted; and until 1924, they were not U.S. citizens if they were born on an Indian reservation.

So yes, non-citizens are among the "persons" counted for apportioning representatives.

You brain-dead cultists have no fucking clue about civics.

Niggra please.....

 

[Faun]

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

Well, the "whole" number would include everyone. Why is that so difficult for you? That is the way it has always been, this is not new.

Aside from Indians?

Indians "not taxed," ya fucking moron.

 

[Faun]

Seems you're the one who's ignorant of basic facts. Since the Constitutional apportionment of U.S. representatives is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed," and not just citizens -- you just blew up your own reason for why we should add that question to the census.

And why were the Indians not included in the count?

It was because THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED CITIZENS. At he time, Indians were not considered citizens, and it really wasn't anticipated that there would be any significant number of other persons in the country that were not citizens, aside from slaves who fell under the Three Fifths compromise.

Except it was not all Indians, just the ones not taxed.

Run Jakey run....

LOLOL

You don't even know who you're talking to.

 

[Tehon]

(smile) Tell us son, WHICH person' were to be counted....to WHOM did the 14th apply?

Well, the "whole" number would include everyone. Why is that so difficult for you? That is the way it has always been, this is not new.

Aside from Indians?

yes. We are a country of immigrants, they did not become citizens the day they walked off the boat.

Spare us the slogans.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is included in the apportionment population counts? back to top

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. This is the same procedure used in 2000.

Congressional Apportionment

You do know what a resident is, right?

 

[pismoe]

Democrats handed Trump even more votes.

Majority want citizenship question on census, 53%-32%

What would the citizenship question add to the purpose of the census? I always thought the census was needed for districting, school funding, Congressional representation etc.
What is the positive effect of such a question?

--------------------------------- it might or would separate citizens from 'invaders' , might scare the 'non citizens' from answering the door so that they might self deport. Might also cut non citizens from FREEBIES and Services . And if the question is included its sure to pizz off enemy democrats Bullwinkle .