Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And yet that question was asked now wasn't it.
Back to my question............why should illegals count for rep numbers in Congress??????????????????????????????????????????
Got a Supreme Court Ruling to back that............do they count people vacationing from Europe too. LOLAnd yet that question was asked now wasn't it.
And the question will be asked this year as well on the ACS. That has not changed.
Back to my question............why should illegals count for rep numbers in Congress??????????????????????????????????????????
Because the Constitution says the "WHOLE" number of people are to be counted. I believe we should follow the Constitution till such time as it is changed.
And yet that question was asked now wasn't it.
And the question will be asked this year as well on the ACS. That has not changed.
Back to my question............why should illegals count for rep numbers in Congress??????????????????????????????????????????
Because the Constitution says the "WHOLE" number of people are to be counted. I believe we should follow the Constitution till such time as it is changed.
Trump Administration Drops Bid To Put Citizenship Question On 2020 Census
Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall
Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The Constitution was clearly concerned with limiting itself to CITIZENS of the USA.
So why would you think non-citizens should be included in representation (or voting) ? Trying to increase the numbers of Democrats, huh ?
Still, There is nothing wrong with putting that question in the census, What would be wrong with putting that question in there?Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The Constitution was clearly concerned with limiting itself to CITIZENS of the USA.
So why would you think non-citizens should be included in representation (or voting) ? Trying to increase the numbers of Democrats, huh ?
Once again, if you basic grammar is your friend.
Notice the "but" in there at the start of the second sentence?
It is very important. Everything after the "But" tells who can vote and what can happen if you do not let them vote. It has NOTHING to do with the apportionment or representatives.
Non-citizens have always been counted by the Census and they have always been used for the apportionment or representatives, this is not new, this did not just change.
Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall
Thank you...I was looking for that.
Golfing Gator ?
Still, There is nothing wrong with putting that question in the census, What would be wrong with putting that question in there?Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The Constitution was clearly concerned with limiting itself to CITIZENS of the USA.
So why would you think non-citizens should be included in representation (or voting) ? Trying to increase the numbers of Democrats, huh ?
Once again, if you basic grammar is your friend.
Notice the "but" in there at the start of the second sentence?
It is very important. Everything after the "But" tells who can vote and what can happen if you do not let them vote. It has NOTHING to do with the apportionment or representatives.
Non-citizens have always been counted by the Census and they have always been used for the apportionment or representatives, this is not new, this did not just change.
Putting that question in the census would improve it vastly, but then again political correctness has no common senseStill, There is nothing wrong with putting that question in the census, What would be wrong with putting that question in there?Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The Constitution was clearly concerned with limiting itself to CITIZENS of the USA.
So why would you think non-citizens should be included in representation (or voting) ? Trying to increase the numbers of Democrats, huh ?
Once again, if you basic grammar is your friend.
Notice the "but" in there at the start of the second sentence?
It is very important. Everything after the "But" tells who can vote and what can happen if you do not let them vote. It has NOTHING to do with the apportionment or representatives.
Non-citizens have always been counted by the Census and they have always been used for the apportionment or representatives, this is not new, this did not just change.
Nothing inherently wrong with it, the rational of the Admin was bogus and thus they shot themselves in the foot with a bullshit reason to add it at this late date.
Putting that question in the census would improve it vastly, but then again political correctness has no common senseStill, There is nothing wrong with putting that question in the census, What would be wrong with putting that question in there?Amendment XIV, Section 2I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The Constitution was clearly concerned with limiting itself to CITIZENS of the USA.
So why would you think non-citizens should be included in representation (or voting) ? Trying to increase the numbers of Democrats, huh ?
Once again, if you basic grammar is your friend.
Notice the "but" in there at the start of the second sentence?
It is very important. Everything after the "But" tells who can vote and what can happen if you do not let them vote. It has NOTHING to do with the apportionment or representatives.
Non-citizens have always been counted by the Census and they have always been used for the apportionment or representatives, this is not new, this did not just change.
Nothing inherently wrong with it, the rational of the Admin was bogus and thus they shot themselves in the foot with a bullshit reason to add it at this late date.
Except the question would improve the census… And benefit America and it’s real citizensPutting that question in the census would improve it vastly, but then again political correctness has no common senseStill, There is nothing wrong with putting that question in the census, What would be wrong with putting that question in there?Amendment XIV, Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The Constitution was clearly concerned with limiting itself to CITIZENS of the USA.
So why would you think non-citizens should be included in representation (or voting) ? Trying to increase the numbers of Democrats, huh ?
Once again, if you basic grammar is your friend.
Notice the "but" in there at the start of the second sentence?
It is very important. Everything after the "But" tells who can vote and what can happen if you do not let them vote. It has NOTHING to do with the apportionment or representatives.
Non-citizens have always been counted by the Census and they have always been used for the apportionment or representatives, this is not new, this did not just change.
Nothing inherently wrong with it, the rational of the Admin was bogus and thus they shot themselves in the foot with a bullshit reason to add it at this late date.
The Trump Admin openly admitted doing so would reduce response rates and thus weaken the data. They gave no positive rationale for doing this. Thus they lost.
Except the question would improve the census… And benefit America and it’s real citizensPutting that question in the census would improve it vastly, but then again political correctness has no common senseStill, There is nothing wrong with putting that question in the census, What would be wrong with putting that question in there?Once again, if you basic grammar is your friend.
Notice the "but" in there at the start of the second sentence?
It is very important. Everything after the "But" tells who can vote and what can happen if you do not let them vote. It has NOTHING to do with the apportionment or representatives.
Non-citizens have always been counted by the Census and they have always been used for the apportionment or representatives, this is not new, this did not just change.
Nothing inherently wrong with it, the rational of the Admin was bogus and thus they shot themselves in the foot with a bullshit reason to add it at this late date.
The Trump Admin openly admitted doing so would reduce response rates and thus weaken the data. They gave no positive rationale for doing this. Thus they lost.
Amendment XIV, Section 2Let’s say you were to apply some simple logic....would you assume the words contained in the constitution were used under the assumption that all present in this nation would be citizens of this nation?
Do you believe the constitution is an international document authored to protect and benefit those of other nations?
I think if they only wanted to count citizens, they would have stated that. The rest of Section 2 of the 14th talks about citizens and voting.
People that are permanent resident aliens were a thing even back then.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The Constitution was clearly concerned with limiting itself to CITIZENS of the USA.
So why would you think non-citizens should be included in representation (or voting) ? Trying to increase the numbers of Democrats, huh ?
Once again, if you basic grammar is your friend.
Notice the "but" in there at the start of the second sentence?
It is very important. Everything after the "But" tells who can vote and what can happen if you do not let them vote. It has NOTHING to do with the apportionment or representatives.
Non-citizens have always been counted by the Census and they have always been used for the apportionment or representatives, this is not new, this did not just change.
So you believe the framework of our constitution permits citizens the right to vote but allows for representation of illegal aliens?
That really makes sense to you?
Accuracy, we Gotta know how many illegal aliens are in this country to have any idea how fucked up it is. If If illegal aliens want any rights, They got to come out of the shadows. If not, It’s best if illegal aliens stay in the shadows… Because we cannot afford their sorry asses.Except the question would improve the census… And benefit America and it’s real citizensPutting that question in the census would improve it vastly, but then again political correctness has no common senseStill, There is nothing wrong with putting that question in the census, What would be wrong with putting that question in there?
Nothing inherently wrong with it, the rational of the Admin was bogus and thus they shot themselves in the foot with a bullshit reason to add it at this late date.
The Trump Admin openly admitted doing so would reduce response rates and thus weaken the data. They gave no positive rationale for doing this. Thus they lost.
How would it improve the census?
Accuracy, we Gotta know how many illegal aliens are in this country to have any idea how fucked up it is. If If illegal aliens want any rights, They got to come out of the shadows. If not, It’s best if illegal aliens stay in the shadows… Because we cannot afford their sorry asses.
That’s why i say the question should be in the census, Illegal aliens should have no say whatsoever on anything in this country. it would either repell them from doing the census, and if they did we would just disregard their sorry asses.Accuracy, we Gotta know how many illegal aliens are in this country to have any idea how fucked up it is. If If illegal aliens want any rights, They got to come out of the shadows. If not, It’s best if illegal aliens stay in the shadows… Because we cannot afford their sorry asses.
Even with the question, census could not tell us that. There is not a spot for "are you an illegal".
We have an annual survey done by the CB that answers the question as to the number of citizens.
