August 7, 2025
"President Trump said on Thursday that he had ordered the Commerce Department to begin work on a new census that excludes undocumented immigrants."
"A new census would be a significant departure for a process stipulated by the Constitution to occur every 10 years. Historically, the census has counted all U.S. residents regardless of their immigration status, a process that helps determine both the allotment of congressional seats and billions of dollars in federal money sent to states. 'People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,' Mr. Trump wrote in a post on social media.... Mr. Trump tried a similar move in 2020 to keep undocumented immigrants out of the census, but a federal court rejected that attempt, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene...."
Posts
111 comments:
There is absolutely no prohibition on conducting a census whenever the fuck we feel like it and count whatever the fuck we want.
It doesn't have to be THE census. It can just be A census. And the judiciary has no control over what the Executive choses to count. Maybe in the OFFICIAL census, they do. But not EVERY census.
This is not a good idea. Why is he pushing this? A better answer would be to require census takers to determine citizenship, contra Obama. We ought to have some knowledge of how many illegals are here.
It's time Americans know how many illegal aliens are STEALING House seats from American citizens.
That they were included at all would've been grounds for a full-fledged civil war in an earlier, better, more masculine America.
“We ought to have some knowledge of how many illegals are here.”
Yes, all but the braindead and Democrats (BIRM) who know the inclusion of illegals in the census is required for said Democrats survival as a party know this.
This is one Trump is going to lose- the text of the law says population which is going to include illegal population.
"We ought to have some knowledge of how many illegals are here.”
Maybe the census-takers could be accompanied by ICE agents. The number of illegals that are here is supposed to be zero.
It’s no wonder the Commies can’t keep with Trump. He opens up another front every day against these clowns. Yesterday it was taking over management of DC, today rewriting census guidelines. Always attacking. General Patton would be smiling.
...within every subsequent Term of ten Years...
I'm not seeing a problem here.
However, I think it perfectly legal to conduct a census and to ask whether or not a respondant is a legal resident. I can't think of any legitimate argument for not asking such a question.
There is absolutely no prohibition on conducting a census whenever the fuck we feel like it and count whatever the fuck we want.
You must have been a fucking lousy law clerk. The constitution sets out who must be counted, and that is everyone (except for exceptions that are no longer valid).
Trump cannot change this by Executive Order. By all means, if you don't like the current enumeration, propose and pass a constitutional amendment. In the meantime you cannot "count whatever the fuck you want".
"This is one Trump is going to lose- the text of the law says population which is going to include illegal population."
Sorry, Yancy ... Trump isn't altering THE census. That count happens once every 10 years and is the count of ALL people in the country, including people here illegally who haven't been put in jail yet.
He's taking a DIFFERENT census. One that counts Americans.
The Supreme Court has something to day about THE census. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about counting Americans.
There is nothing illegal about that. And the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this count. They have jurisdiction over "the" census, but not "this" census.
In legal language: illegal aliens.
Fredo wrote: " The constitution sets out who must be counted ..."
And that will continue to happen. Every 10 years. That's the "official" census. There is no law however, prohibiting counting American citizens as a matter of policy. Whenever the fuck we feel like it.
Sanctuary states will have to foot the bill for aborting, sequestering the "burden" of evidence and curtailed shared/shifted responsibility. Oh, and gerrymandered Democratic districts, too, where democracy dies in darkness.
FLC, then let me clarify- for purposes of reapportionment he will lose. He will probably lose in attempts to use the new census in the distribution of federal funds, too. As I wrote in my second comment, I think a non-regular census isn't illegal- indeed, the law provides for such interim censuses and I think questioning the legal status is also perfectly legal and necessary data-point for the federal government to have.
Like so many of Trump's announcements when he opens a new issue, it seems clear to me that this is one of his signature opening statements, designed to explode all the right heads. The fall-back position to this will be that all will be counted, and the citizenship status will be duly noted and prominently featured. Nobody will be able to argue against that - under Obama, it was a matter of preference for political advantage, and in no way sets unbreakable precedent.
Now watch what happens when the real numbers start to roll in.
Funny how the media doesn't ask these questions, isn't it? It's almost as if they're not hated enough.
"I think it perfectly legal to conduct a census and to ask whether or not a respondant is a legal resident. I can't think of any legitimate argument for not asking such a question."
It is also perfectly legal when that person says they are not a legal resident to just go ahead right there and slap the cuffs on them and haul their ass right out of OUR country.
That's legal. And I can't think of any legitimate reason why that shouldn't be done.
The real legal battle will be in the next decennial census should the GOP hold the White House after 2028- I think that question will be included in that regular census even if the distinction isn't allowed for purposes of reapportionment. While this isn't an 80/20 issue it will be a 60/40 one with the GOP on the correct side of it.
Are all the red state governors behind this? Seems they will be the big losers in reduced federal aid.
then let me clarify- for purposes of reapportionment he will lose
Trump has said nothing about that.
Yet.
Once Americans find out, though, how many illegal aliens are STEALING House seats in the House of Representatives ... stealing those seats from Americans ... then maybe we'll alter our Constitution to allow Trump to win on the apportionment issue. Maybe we'll just decide that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in these matters (just the same as their jurisdiction is limited all the time in other matters.)
We're taking the country back. Get on board or we will run over you with our train.
One work around would be to count "all persons" as the Constitution requires, but then use models to exclude the illegal aliens for purposes of House districts.
"Seems they will be the big losers in reduced federal aid. "
But HUGE winners in education savings, and health savings. Net winners, in other words. Also local low-income housing savings.
You're goddamn right red states are all for this. We're going broke feeding, housing and providing these illegals with free health care.
Our censuses have been as out of whack as our BLM numbers for decades. But given the large base number (330+ million) we've accepted that a few thousand here or there would not make much of a difference. But given the influx of literally tens of millions of illegal immigrants over the past few years, it does now make a difference. Especially when it comes to congressional reapportionment.
For instance, the last post census reapportionment turned out to short Florida two additional seats and keep New York up by 2 it shouldn't have, as Florida has crept into the 3rd most populous US state while New York has been losing people. This was made clear after the fact, and we were told there was nothing that could be done for 10 years.
Well...what if there is?
It would be good to get this right. Seriously. And I think the larger issue is that once the people of the country see how badly this has been taken advantage of, how one party has used an open border and illegal immigrants to try to take and hold onto power, there will be a price to pay.
As there should be.
It is perfectly reasonable to try to ascertain how many in the population are citizens, legal non-citizen immigrants, and illegal immigrants. But it seems hard to do in practice. My recollection is that most people fill out the census without any oversight or verification. So how would the counts be accurate? I can imagine ways of flagging suspicious responses and sending out census takers to interview those responders, but that would be very costly.
I'm not sure how this works when Trump leaves office in 3 years.
If you are counting heads at home to know how many steaks to buy for dinner, do you count the burglar that broke in while you were at work today?
He gets a hot dog.
Trump pokes Congress to take affirmative action. And gives notice to the judges who would be kings and queens in their fiefdoms.
Yancey Ward said...This is one Trump is going to lose- the text of the law says population which is going to include illegal population.
Not necessarily so. There is no explicit carve out for illegal aliens, but the law has never been interpreted to require counting everybody. We don't count tourists, we don't count visitors. We cannot establish the residency of illegals; therefore, we cannot legally count them.
"and billions of dollars in federal money sent to states."
Regarding illegal aliens, the only reason for sending federal money to the states should be to enforce the removal of those illegals from the country.
The "not taxed" clause may be key to auditing the population.
What about people that promise to reveal a secret cabal of pedophiles but renege because they’re on the list?
Donald J Trump is at best protecting people that rape children and at worst preventing us from learning that Donald J Trump IS a one of those people raping the kids.
It's not a terrible idea, but it's not going to happen. It's not something Trump can make happen on his own.
Reagan's people understood that presidents had to feed the press something every day or the press would make up stories of its own. Trump takes that to the next level, sometimes even feeding the press with the material for the negative stories they would make up anyway, but he's mostly been able to pull it off ... so far ...
"We don't count tourists, we don't count visitors. We cannot establish the residency of illegals; therefore, we cannot legally count them."
I don't think that will legally fly- illegal immigrants reside somewhere with an address in a large majority of cases.
As usual Fredo doesn't know what he's talking about, and FLC is doing exactly what a lawyer would do. I happen to agree with Yancey that Trump would lose if he pushed this to apportionment but under the text of the Constitution it was necessary to distinguish 'Indians not taxed' and slaves to determine the proper apportionment so there appears to be no reason that asking citizenship status is unlawful.
"I'm not sure how this works when Trump leaves office in 3 years."
Maybe we edit the "living" Constitution, so he doesn't have to. We just have to have some imagination and the future looks pretty good.
I suppose Freder will now say Americans have no right to change the Constitution to allow Trump to remain in office for however long he wishes. Lifetime appointments, after all, are good for the goose (Supreme Court). They must be equally good for the gander (President). Why should the judiciary have lifetime appointments, but not the Executive. Seems silly.
cause Madison was a hater, and just hated George III
In other words, MadisonMan, Trump isn't leaving office. And it's going to be legal. Because we're going to MAKE it legal.
All legal like. There is nothing stopping us from making the Presidency a lifetime appointment if that's what's best for the American people.
And what functionality will Artificial Intelligence / supercomputing bring to the table for the next census? The ability to sift through reams of metadata to resolve the citizenship position for each individual? I could see that happening.
n.n said...
The "not taxed" clause may be key to auditing the population.
There may be something here - the text excludes "Indians not taxed" from the count; in the U.S. Constitution, the term "Indians" refers to Native Americans, specifically tribal nations and their members, who were recognized as distinct entities with inherent powers of self-government at the time of the Constitution's drafting; many (if not most) of the illegal immigrants are native to the Americas - Incans (large parts of western South America), Aztecs (much of Mexico) etc., all of whom have inherent powers of self-government (all of those regions have a government of their own). So textually there is a basis for not counting them.
And now we know why the borders were opened wide. According to one estimate, if the illegal immigrants are not counted in the census then there will be a net gain of 27 Congressional seats allocated to red states (with a corresponding loss of 27 loss seats for blue states). Since the author of that piece did not expose his data or his estimation methodology, I take that with a grain of salt (like about a shaker full), but there will be undoubtedly be a migration of seats from blue to red.
Make the apportionment of seats based upon actual residents. Make apportionment of $ based upon citizens.
If we ever get a fairly accurate accounting of illegals in our country, state by state, we will be shocked.
"Historically, the census has counted all U.S. residents regardless of their immigration status, a process that helps determine both the allotment of congressional seats..."
People who are in the country illegally are entitled to representation in congress?
Note the careful phrasing, to suggest that the Constitution requires trespassers to be counted as citizens.
I have no problem with them being counted--and dealt with appropriately. Funding and representation is a different thing altogether.
That they were included at all would've been grounds for a full-fledged civil war in an earlier, better, more masculine America.
Still is.
Any politician who wants illegals to dilute the vote of American citizens is a tyrannical enemy occupier who deserves to be seized by a mob, brutally beaten and whipped, and summarily lynched. Then hung in chains at a crossroads to rot, as a warning to the rest of the enemy scum.
That’s a huge waste of taxpayer money. The census will be done again in 2030. Just wait until then to implement all your cockamamie ideas.
The constitution sets out who must be counted, and that is everyone (except for exceptions that are no longer valid).
Leftists love that "Living Constitution" shit. Let's ram it down their throats.
We have a Supreme Court that might allow this under the theory that illegal aliens are to be considered temporary invaders rather than legitimate residents, and no more worthy of being counted in the Census than a brigade of Mexican soldiers that marched over the border.
In any case, the struggle will push the Overton window far to the right as the man in the street ponders the injustice of it all. Just as with the vigorous mass deportation of illegals, the Democrats will wake up shocked one day to discover that there is supermajority support, even among minorities, for not counting illegal invaders for purposes of representation in Congress or electoral votes for the Presidency.
Is an illegal a resident or a visitor? If the State clearly intends to deport them ASAP and the law requires it, then they are not residents. Legally they don't even rise to the status of visitor. Any time you are counting people as part of something, you don't count ones who are not supposed to be there, who are interlopers. Not on a team, not in a club, not in a company, or a household or any other group. Interlopers are not counted, especially for purposes of sharing resources, benefits or responsibilities. We all used to understand such simple, long-held principles, but the modern public mind is deeply flawed. I'd say it's insane.
MAGAts are a thinking, reasonable folk, not fascists at all……
“…tyrannical enemy occupier who deserves to be seized by a mob, brutally beaten and whipped, and summarily lynched. Then hung in chains at a crossroads to rot, as a warning to the rest of the enemy scum.
FormerLawClerk said...
Once Americans find out, though, how many illegal aliens are STEALING House seats in the House of Representatives ... stealing those seats from Americans ... then maybe we'll alter our Constitution to allow Trump to win on the apportionment issue. Maybe we'll just decide that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in these matters (just the same as their jurisdiction is limited all the time in other matters.)
We're taking the country back. Get on board or we will run over you with our train.
8/7/25, 11:11 AM
Ha. Yes this will happen. President Trump is going to use executive authority to declare a new census regardless of judicial decrees. I really don't think the Democrats have thought this through- including the consequences of lying on a census form or not returning it.
"That’s a huge waste of taxpayer money. "
We would never put up with that.
It may well save us a huge amount of taxpayer money if we stop funding everything like there are tens of millions more citizens than there are. It could be the most fiscally responsible act in the history of government spending.
to quote the constitution
"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." The 10 years is an upper limit, not a lower limit. However, Congress needs to direct the manner of enumeration. I'm in favor, but legislation or at least ratification is needed.
Hag is in Teh Bag… AGAIN!!!
jim5301 said...
"Are all the red state governors behind this? Seems they will be the big losers in reduced federal aid."
That depends on your definition of "Federal Aid".
Are you including military bases, federal scientific installations and Indian reservations as recipients of "Federal Aid" ?
Historically, the census has counted all U.S. residents regardless of their immigration status
Historically, levels of non-citizens in the U.S. was low and expectations for assimilation were high. So, the underlying reason for counting them no longer exists.
Under the "living Constitution" theory that says words mean whatever the most recent reader thinks they mean, "Indians not taxed" would mean "illegal immigrants from India," wouldn't it? The 180 on THAT argument would be fun to observe.
" Why should the judiciary have lifetime appointments, but not the Executive. Seems silly."
****************
Once again, Former Law Crank demonstrates he understands bupkis about our Constitution.
A lifetime Presidential appointment raises obvious questions: by whom, and through what process.
The POTUS is the only US government official ELECTED by the people and the states through the Electoral College system giving small states a say in the outcome.
That elected person has political power of his/her own, and need not be controlled by the congress beyond its legislative and oversight powers.
But if Congress made the "lifetime" appointment, it would have the power to nullify it, and it wouldn't need to follow such niceties as impeachment and removal after a Senate trial. Such an appointed President would have to tread carefully lest he lose his office.
Such a system would create political instability, as the "life expectancy" for that "lifetime" appointment would be very short.
So...not "silly" at all.
Yancey Ward said... illegal immigrants reside somewhere with an address in a large majority of cases.
They have no legal residence in 100% of cases.
MAGAts are a thinking, reasonable folk, not fascists at all……
Does that frighten you, Hag?
That is the way humanity lived for all but the last few hundred years of its existence. It still is the rule in many parts of the world.
Civilization is a thin veneer. An agreement between contending tribes that may be written on paper, but truly exists only in the hearts of its signatories.
If one side fails to keep its end of the bargain, the agreement is scrapped and we will return to the law of the jungle. The lotus-eating leftists had better pray it does not happen in their lifetimes. It will not go well for them.
"The NYT reports."
Perhaps it is time to find some more appropriate term for what the NYT does?
Doctrey, and there it is—the shift. The slow slide from “Trump would never be a dictator,” to “maybe he said he would,” to “you know what, maybe we need a dictatorship after all.”
When someone says, “Maybe we’ll just decide that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in these matters,” what they’re really saying is: We don’t care what the Constitution says—we only care about power.
That’s not patriotism. That’s how democracy dies—not with a bang, but with cheers from people who think their guy should be above the law.
We’ve already seen what happens in countries where courts are ignored, rules are rewritten for one leader, and threats replace debate. If your vision for America requires running people over with a train, maybe it’s time to ask yourself:
Are you defending freedom—or just your side winning, no matter the cost?
"by whom, and through what process."
By the same process that it was originally written. A bunch of guys started it by first shooting all of their enemies. That's American history. That's our precedent. The leader of the band of traitors is now carved on Mount Rushmore, just to the left of where Trump is going to be carved up there.
Prof. M. Drout said...
“Under the "living Constitution" theory that says words mean whatever the most recent reader thinks they mean, "Indians not taxed" would mean "illegal immigrants from India," wouldn't it? The 180 on THAT argument would be fun to observe.”
By that logic, it would also include the Indios (and arguably mestizos others of mixed Indios ancestry) illegally coming from up from Mexico, Central America, and South America.
"The POTUS is the only US government official ELECTED by the people and the states through the Electoral College."
The popular vote has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how our President is elected. If the Electoral College wants Trump to have a third term, they can elect him.
Historically, levels of non-citizens in the U.S. was low and expectations for assimilation were high.
Neither of these statements are true. Unless by "historically", you mean between the mid-1920's to the mid-1960's.
We should count them so we know what we’re dealing with but exclude them from reapportionment. That is common sense. We still need to know who is here and where they are. They’re still going to impact our schools and hospital emergency rooms. Federal funding will go to dealing with them like it or not.
Does that frighten you, Hag?
Not at all.
Does the prospect of inspiring fear turn you on?
Fascism is INDEED the frenzy of sexual cripples.
Question for Fredo, Ronald Ward, and Ballsucker:
Is it legal to use the census to count the numbers of illegal residents? If not, explain why it isn't proper.
IRC, Roberts joined the 4 liberals in refusing to overturn the crazy far-left appeals court that cancelled asking the "citizenship/residency" question on the census. It was against the constitution - LOL!
Or maybe the court ruled that the Commerce Department didnt jump through some mysterious hoop that no one had ever thought of. Just another example of the Judges doing anything they want without regard for anything other then their personal wishes.
We've asked about citizenship before on the census. But again, facts, the law, and the plain meaning of the constitution mean nothing. All that matters is the lawyers in black robes have the power - and what they want. Decision first. Reasons after.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Are you defending freedom—or just your side winning, no matter the cost?
8/7/25, 12:59 PM
ROFL. Sit on a tack, Princess Highground. Aside from the stolen election, the Democrats tried to imprison President Trump, and then tried to assassinate him when that failed. You should be grateful beyond words that he is so soft-hearted and just: if a Trump successor asked for black robed maniacs and New York lawyers to be dragged through the streets, tens of millions of people would join the wild hunt.
I can agree with Yancey that the government may be limited by the states on what they can do with a mid-decade Census, but I see nothing (except maybe appropriations of funds) that can stop Trump from conducting a Census now.
I do think it could be argued that a Census could be performed anytime for apportionment, so long as they occur within a ten-year period. It may not be a winning argument, but that's because long precedent has shown the government doing it at the end/start of the decade. It is not like progressives care about precedent when it is them that want to ignore it.
"When someone says, “Maybe we’ll just decide that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in these matters,” what they’re really saying is: We don’t care what the Constitution says—we only care about power."
Like when Brandon wanted to cancel student loans? That sort of "We don't care"?
"The slow slide from “Trump would never be a dictator,” to “maybe he said he would,” to “you know what, maybe we need a dictatorship after all.”
List six authoritarian actions taken by Donald Trump. Not things he's said- things he's done. And by "authoritarian", I mean actions he has taken that are not allowed by law.
I went back and read through Roberts insane opinion in 2019. The liberals of course just voted their politics. The Conservatives said asking about Citizenship was a matter for the Commerce Department - not judges - to decide. roberts then sided with the liberals by saying he thought the Commerce Secretaries REASON for asking about Citizenship was a lie. So therefore, the district court was upheld and no question could be asked!
Typical Roberts special. Almost as good as his deciding that while Obama could issue a DACA Dreamer executive order, but Trump couldn't cancel it, because blahblah. LOL.
Bush must be so happy he put this clown on the court. Like Bush, he's always pushing the Globalist agenda. That's what happens when you elect "moderate" Republicans. Bush 41 gave us leftwing souter, Ford gave us Leftwing Stevens, Nixon gave us leftwing blackmun, and Bush 43 gave us Roberts.
The federal government can conduct any census it wants — of citizens, taxpayers, or left-handed redheads — as often as it likes. There’s no constitutional barrier to gathering that data.
But when it comes to apportioning House seats, the Constitution sets a clear standard:
An “actual Enumeration” of the whole number of persons in each state, every ten years, in a manner directed by Congress.
So yes — run a new census focused only on citizens. Publish the results. Make your case.
If enough Americans find the data compelling, it can become the basis for a constitutional amendment to change how apportionment works.
Have each census taker accompanied by two ICE agents. Works for me.
Has anyone explained why people who are not in the country legally are entitled to representation in congress?
This is a tactic to encourage illegal aliens to leave.
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
Whatever census is taken, if it's not directed by Congress, it's not official and can't be used for apportionment.
It's important to note that the reason the citizenship and legal residence question is not asked is to improve the accuracy of the headcount since fears of potential negative consequences from those with dubious legal status in the USA will result in an undercount. The impact on the accuracy of overall government statistics and allocation of resources is negatively affected if this happens.
The rational for excluding non-citizens from the count is often that it inflates the headcount for states with more people ineligible to vote and results in higher congressional representation than they deserve. There is merit to this argument, but at the same time the same logic could be used to exclude minors who are ineligible to vote when deciding congressional representation.
Texas tried something along these lines a while back (counting only eligible voters when drawing congressional maps) and was ultimately defeated at the Supreme Court, so it seems like this is settled law. Although with this SCOTUS and president, I suppose nothing is ever settled law.
kakscheisser®
Mason, are you not aware or do you simply not care that when Biden’s student loan plan went to the Supreme Court and was blocked, he complied? Full stop. No agents acted in defiance. No one ignored the ruling.
What he did next wasn’t “defiance”—it was finding a different legal route under a different statute, specifically the Higher Education Act.
Which SC rulings has Trump ignored?
The People and our [unPlanned] Posterity.
Ronald J. Ward said:
"What [Biden] did next wasn’t “defiance”—it was finding a different legal route under a different statute, specifically the Higher Education Act."
**********************
And that attempt , Plan B, failed as well.
Per AI:
"However, this Plan B approach also faced significant legal challenges and was ultimately unsuccessful.
During his final days in the Oval Office, former President Joe Biden abandoned the 'plan B' of his broad student debt cancellation plan, which the Supreme Court blocked in 2023.
This alternate forgiveness plan already faced legal challenges and was likely to fail under the new Trump administration.
So yes, Biden did attempt to use the Higher Education Act as an alternative legal pathway after the Supreme Court blocked his HEROES Act-based approach, but this alternative plan was also ultimately abandoned before implementation."
Yancey Ward said...
Question for Fredo, Ronald Ward, and Ballsucker:
Is it legal to use the census to count the numbers of illegal residents? If not, explain why it isn't proper.
Yes — the Constitution requires counting all persons in each state for apportionment, which includes undocumented immigrants.
And yes, Congress can authorize the census to ask about citizenship, legal status, or even whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi, but apportionment must still be based on counting everyone unless the Constitution is amended.
If by “the census” you mean the Article I, Section 2 enumeration, the manner has to come from Congress. If it’s for some other purpose, then you have more leeway, as long as it’s carried out under lawful authority and used to execute some existing law.
Fascism is INDEED the frenzy of sexual cripples.
My wife will be amused.
Isn't it curious how leftists always reach into Sigmund Freud's empty bag of tricks to try to explain why their opponents are mentally defective in some way? If they could, they'd put anyone who opposes them in a lunatic asylum, just like the Soviets did.
We've known for at least 50 years that Freud was a fraud and psychoanalysis is laughable horse shit, but Manhattan leftists and those who want to be like them just can't get off his couch.
Comically, to the limited extent sexual dysfunction and dissatisfaction has been rigorously studied with respect to political affiliation, conservatives are doing much better than liberals. We have slightly bigger dicks too. We're not compensating for anything.
Seems they will be the big losers in reduced federal aid.
Ever consider that federal 'aid' wouldn't be needed if those states weren't forced to provide illegals all the benefits to which they're not entitled?
Hmmm?
The short-form census is exactly what’s needed for the constitutional enumeration — nothing more. Every question on it is clearly tied to its delegated powers: preventing duplicates, verifying addresses, resolving identity errors, and making sure everyone is counted in the right place. I wish everything the government did was this focused on its core purpose.
A politically motivated counting that can be adjusted to suit our demented leader's wants and needs. Two monstrous problems, the wasting of an unbudgeted $20 billion, and nobody to walk the neighborhoods except ICE Barbie's masked fools pretending to be police.
A far better use of the ICE SICKIES is to immediately put them to work in agriculture, picking fruits and vegetables that are rotting as we all know.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Doctrey, and there it is—the shift. The slow slide from “Trump would never be a dictator,” to “maybe he said he would,” to “you know what, maybe we need a dictatorship after all.”
When someone says, “Maybe we’ll just decide that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in these matters,” what they’re really saying is: We don’t care what the Constitution says—we only care about power.
I am curious where in the constitution it says that every act of the federal government is subject to Supreme Court review.
The usurpation was Marbury v Madison. The Supreme Court is out of control and was never meant to have the power that they granted themselves.
It will be fun to watch the democrats spiral into irrelevance as their color revolution is ended. Most Americans do not support the blue cities importing poor people to exploit for cheap labor and provide an anchor democrats use to steal taxpayer dollars.
Fortunately for us the Democrat voters are too stupid to realize that fighting this just ensures democrats lose every election until they stop fighting for illegal immigration.
gadfly said...
A politically motivated counting that can be adjusted to suit our demented leader's wants and needs. Two monstrous problems, the wasting of an unbudgeted $20 billion, and nobody to walk the neighborhoods except ICE Barbie's masked fools pretending to be police.
A far better use of the ICE SICKIES is to immediately put them to work in agriculture, picking fruits and vegetables that are rotting as we all know.
Please continue to support importing cheap labor that oligarchs can exploit.
People like you are helping build Trump’s legacy. The harder you fight the better he looks.
On top of losing the illegals' (3/5 compromise, anyone?), the Lefties are about to learn that all those abortions was really a lousy idea.
Achilles said...
The usurpation was Marbury v Madison. The Supreme Court is out of control and was never meant to have the power that they granted themselves.
Been saying this all along. For 62 years, akshully.
Whatever census is taken, if it's not directed by Congress, it's not official and can't be used for apportionment.
Yaya. Great. Settled. Now…I can think of several constructive reasons why counting non-illegals would be a constructive activity. Trump inherited a mess from the previous administration, whoever it was, so extraordinary things are required to remedy…
14th Amendment:
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.
It seems to me this says you don't count people who don't have the right to vote when you determine how many representatives a state will have. Can one of you smart folks explain to me how I'm reading that wrong? Because I must be. Thx.
Two monstrous problems, the wasting of an unbudgeted $20 billion, and nobody to walk the neighborhoods except ICE Barbie's masked fools pretending to be police.
So Trump's proposal already has Gadfly admitting (at least tacitly) that illegal neighborhoods are unsafe!!
Yes — the Constitution requires counting all persons in each state for apportionment, which includes undocumented immigrants.
Wrong. It does not call for counting each and every person they stumble across in their canvassing - it (at most) calls for counting everyone "residing" in each state, which is not at all the same thing.
Keldonric said...
Is it legal to use the census to count the numbers of illegal residents? If not, explain why it isn't proper.
Yes — the Constitution requires counting all persons in each state for apportionment, which includes undocumented immigrants.
Article I Section II
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
I take it you're describing the illegals as slaves (ha, ha). SCUS might have to decide if, implicit in the language, "free persons" is restricted to those here legally. I would expect so.
Keldonric said...
Yes — the Constitution requires counting all persons in each state for apportionment, which includes undocumented immigrants."
***************
Yeah, I'm sure the Constitution demands we count illegals "hiding in the shadows", as the Dems like to say--- ESPECIALLY when Homan and ICE are hunting them down.
So...Do you have a citation for that naked assertion?
And, what would be the point of counting people we are trying to remove from this country?
More questions:
Do we have to count the ambassadors and UN people and their families in the census? After all they are all persons living in various States.
Such people are treated as not being under the jurisdiction of the US,, so the "birthright citizenship" issue doesn't apply to them. But are they persons requiring counting, and do their numbers affect apportionment?
If not, why should we have to count illegals to determine apportionment, when the argument is that they too are not under our jurisdiction, but that of the country they come from?
It's important to note that the reason the citizenship and legal residence question is not asked is to improve the accuracy of the headcount since fears of potential negative consequences from those with dubious legal status in the USA will result in an undercount.
Kak said without evidence...
Achilles, your issue isn’t with Marbury v. Madison—it’s with the entire idea that anyone can stop a leader you happen to support.
Judicial review has been settled law since 1803. You may not like it, but the alternative is letting the most powerful branch go unchecked. That’s not liberty. That’s a green light to tyranny.
You’re not defending constitutional limits—you’re making excuses for ignoring them when they get in the way.
immediately put them to work in agriculture, picking fruits and vegetables that are rotting as we all know.
Wow, Democrats want their slave labor back.
@edutcher
Even in the original text, “free persons” had nothing to do with immigration status. It covered citizens, immigrants, and indentured servants, excluded only “Indians not taxed,” and counted “all other persons” (enslaved people) at three-fifths. Legal status in the modern immigration sense wasn’t part of the distinction.
I thought the current political environment was dangerous, nasty, and extreme until i read the profile on Benjamin Franklin Butler from one of yesterday's subjects. The machinations and schemes of the Whigs, Know Nothings, and Democrats, back in the 1800's make modern politics seem mild and tame. There's nothing new under the Sun.
Boyd: Amd XIV was written when no woman could vote, yet it refers to the "whole number of persons in each State." And of course children couldn't vote, either. That reduction formula farther down is a fancy way to say "if you don't let blacks vote, you stinking rebel slavers, we will take away your House representation according to the black proportion of your voting-eligible population." (Somehow none of the Reconstruction amendments ever say "black," "african," or the like, but that's who they were written about.) Two different things.
Of course, the infamous three-fifths clause in the original Constitution was used to reduce the Southern states' congressional representation just a bit, to compensate for their huge enslaved populations.
So the Constitution assumes that the total population, including people who are not and may never be eligible to vote, is used for apportioning and districting.
OTOH, I don't think the Framers or the Reconstruction drafters ever thought the US would have anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of the population made up of illegal aliens. Partially because there wasn't really such a thing as an illegal alien in their eras, and partially because travel was difficult.
Could a lawyer say with a straight face that the facts on the ground have changed so drastically and quickly that the Constitution cannot possibly be construed to include illegals in the census count? It's a living-constitution-style argument, but unfortunately the people who would benefit from it are not living constitutionalists.
RR
JSM
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.