Trump Administration Caves: No Citizenship Question On 2020 Census

[sartre play]

He did not cave, rejected because it did not pass the smell test, Roberts set it up so he can come back again worded so Roberts can pass it .

 

[protectionist]

No it’s not. Representation has nothing to do with citizenship. I already showed the relevant parts of the Constitution. Citizenship has never ever played a role in representation.

But asking the question will cause an undercount and will get representation wrong.

Citizenship data is already collected in the American Community Survey so there is no reason to include a citizenship question except to undercount Hispanics...and deliberately trying for an inaccurate count is unconstitutional.

You showed the relevant parts of the Constitution where citizenship DOES play a role in representation. The Constitution mentioned citizenship 3 times in the section that you showed.

 

[protectionist]

Nobody but conservatives will answer it

Why wouldn't citizen liberals answer it ?

 

[protectionist]

Resident aliens pay taxes just like you and I do for the most part, I think this was their way of giving them a small amount of representation without giving them the right to vote.

FALSE! One of the items on the harms of illegal immigration list is tax $$ loss. Illegal aliens pay much less taxes than citizens do, because of the lower wage jobs they work, and because so man of them work off the books, and pay no tax at all.

They deserve no representation. They are here disrespecting our laws, and us, and causing us a long list of harms. The only things they deserve are a hellhole prison sentence, followed by deportation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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 reason, on any date, is that the census is to count Americans.

The census was never about counting only Americans. Do try and keep up

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No it’s not. Representation has nothing to do with citizenship. I already showed the relevant parts of the Constitution. Citizenship has never ever played a role in representation.

But asking the question will cause an undercount and will get representation wrong.

Citizenship data is already collected in the American Community Survey so there is no reason to include a citizenship question except to undercount Hispanics...and deliberately trying for an inaccurate count is unconstitutional.

You showed the relevant parts of the Constitution where citizenship DOES play a role in representation. The Constitution mentioned citizenship 3 times in the section that you showed.

Yep, all 3 times was in respect to voting, not the apportionment of representatives

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Resident aliens pay taxes just like you and I do for the most part, I think this was their way of giving them a small amount of representation without giving them the right to vote.

FALSE! One of the items on the harms of illegal immigration list is tax $$ loss. Illegal aliens pay much less taxes than citizens do, because of the lower wage jobs they work, and because so man of them work off the books, and pay no tax at all.

They deserve no representation. They are here disrespecting our laws, and us, and causing us a long list of harms. The only things they deserve are a hellhole prison sentence, followed by deportation.

They should be deported, but fuck the prison sentence. That is way to expensive. Just boot them out.

 

[protectionist]

The census was never about counting only Americans. Do try and keep up

It ALWAYS was. Read the Constitution, illegal alien lover.

 

[protectionist]

They should be deported, but fuck the prison sentence. That is way to expensive. Just boot them out.

They can work off the expense while they're there (since they like to work so much)

 

[protectionist]

Yep, all 3 times was in respect to voting, not the apportionment of representatives

Amendment XIV, Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned …...

 

[OnePercenter]

There are millions of poor Americans without healthcare, but the D Party wants to give free healthcare to illegals. In what universe, does that make sense?

If tRump and the rest of the unlawful acting employers would STOP HIRING ILLEGALS we wouldn't have an illegal alien problem.

What would really help is if you Tards

Would quit promising them everything for free...

Such as a job. I DON'T HIRE ILLEGALS......TRUMP DOES!

You lie...

Trump didn't hire any illegals....

Now before you go into your Tard Rant about his company's...

Read my words carefully......

"his company" which would be "his responsibility"

 

[OnePercenter]

It is illegal and unconstitutional when it's proven that the reason for it is to deny blue states the representation they should have. It's unconstitutional and illegal to put it there then lie in a court of law about why they put that question there.

When it's put there to specifically under count blue states to give red states unfair advantage, it's illegal and unconstitutional.

You might want to learn about how it's illegal to lie in court and how it's illegal to cheat and try to rig the system to give yourself an unfair advantage.

Everything you posted is meaningless. Your opinion means nothing. It's our court system that has the say and everything they rule is very meaningful. What you want is irrelevant and worthless. The supreme court has ruled and they ruled in the favor of the blue states, constitution and the law.

If you don't like it, that's your problem. Not mine.

Deal with it.

If a person selects as non-citizen it still counts them in the count. It doesn't deny anyone anything.

What a whiny little twat you are.

The point is that they won't answer it and won't fill out the form. Which you know this and want it to happen. You know that's the reason why trump wanted to put it on the census in the first place and you wanted the results it would produce.

You people know you can't win in an honest election so you cheat. Then lie about your cheating. This time your lies were exposed and one conservative on that court didn't like being lied to. He ruled correctly and in favor of the constitution and law. Now you're all upset you didn't get your way.

Too bad. Stop acting like a little baby and accept the ruling. You won't be able to cheat and rig the census in your favor.

Justice prevailed and you are very upset about being denied the opportunity to cheat.

You can call me all the names you want. It just shows you know you've lost the argument and have nothing substantial to contribute.

I got the best of you so you call me names. Which is typical for a far right radical extremist like yourself.

You can whine, cry, stomp your feet and have all the temper tantrums you want. It won't make any difference.

YOU LOST this one. Deal with it.

Wow, i never knew assumption and guessing were part of the law....

So 50 years ago when the question was on the census it wasn't justice?

Where in the constitution or census law does it say the Commerce department has to justify a question?

If a question is used to deny citizens representation then it runs afoul of several laws.

Illegal aliens aren't entitled to representation, numskull. She they be given the right to vote as well?

You should know.

 

[pinqy]

No it’s not. Representation has nothing to do with citizenship. I already showed the relevant parts of the Constitution. Citizenship has never ever played a role in representation.

But asking the question will cause an undercount and will get representation wrong.

Citizenship data is already collected in the American Community Survey so there is no reason to include a citizenship question except to undercount Hispanics...and deliberately trying for an inaccurate count is unconstitutional.

You showed the relevant parts of the Constitution where citizenship DOES play a role in representation. The Constitution mentioned citizenship 3 times in the section that you showed.

In the 14th amendment.

Your claim, then, is that from the initial ratification of the Constitution (which made no mention of citizenship in Article 1 Section 2) until the passage of the 14th amendment, representation was not limited to citizens, but since then it has been.

You sure you want to stick with that?

 

[protectionist]

In the 14th amendment.

Your claim, then, is that from the initial ratification of the Constitution (which made no mention of citizenship in Article 1 Section 2) until the passage of the 14th amendment, representation was not limited to citizens, but since then it has been.

You sure you want to stick with that?

This is all that need be said >>>

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.

 

[protectionist]

A new level of lowlife shallowness has descended upon America, among those who wish to allow foreign invaders to have success in their invasion, and extend to them even the benefits of citizenship.

Is there a doctor in the house ?

 

[pinqy]

In the 14th amendment.

Your claim, then, is that from the initial ratification of the Constitution (which made no mention of citizenship in Article 1 Section 2) until the passage of the 14th amendment, representation was not limited to citizens, but since then it has been.

You sure you want to stick with that?

This is all that need be said >>>

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.

You ignored my question. Try again

 

[protectionist]

You ignored my question. Try again

I ignore inconsequence.

You ignore the Constitution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The census was never about counting only Americans. Do try and keep up

It ALWAYS was. Read the Constitution, illegal alien lover.

It never has, that has been shown to you multiple times. Now you have nothing left but to lie

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yep, all 3 times was in respect to voting, not the apportionment of representatives

Amendment XIV, Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned …...

And the rest of the story..

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

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In the 14th amendment.

Your claim, then, is that from the initial ratification of the Constitution (which made no mention of citizenship in Article 1 Section 2) until the passage of the 14th amendment, representation was not limited to citizens, but since then it has been.

You sure you want to stick with that?

This is all that need be said >>>

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.

One more time, go back to high school, get your GED and learn what the word "but" means in a paragraph.