U.S. judges reject Trump plan to exclude many immigrants from representation

[NorthernRyland]

1 minute ago, forehandplus said:

This aligns exactly with the questions asked in the first census.

Sure enough the courts may have got Trump on a technicality. Those documents were not perfect. What I'm saying is that this is a corruption of what the founders believed and from the perspective of many Americans, an injustice. 

 

If anyone can enter the country illegally and be used for political representation then we simply do not have a country anymore. All I can take from this is that the courts must be against the American people.

 

 

[forehandplus]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It is interesting that we would go to all the time and expense of the census and make any attempt to determine how may illegal aliens are in the county.

 

I wonder why that is....  

Because it's always been that way.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, forehandplus said:

Because it's always been that way.

 

You are either misinformed or a liar or (more likely) both.

[NorthernRyland]

3 minutes ago, forehandplus said:

Because it's always been that way.

I had no idea we were counting illegal aliens in census and using that for representation in congress. You understand this is outrageous news for many of us right?

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't believe you! Can you provide a link?

http://zemonster.tripod.com/cheesy.html

[Yellowtail]

Just now, stevenl said:

http://zemonster.tripod.com/cheesy.html

 

I knew you were making it up. It says nothing about blue cheese.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, genericptr said:

I had no idea we were counting illegal aliens in census and using that for representation in congress. You understand this is outrageous news for many of us right?

Yes, well we used to count them and identify them as illegals but lefty doesn't like that...

[forehandplus]

6 minutes ago, genericptr said:

I had no idea we were counting illegal aliens in census and using that for representation in congress. You understand this is outrageous news for many of us right?

And your outrage is relevant how?

[NorthernRyland]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, well we used to count them and identify them as illegals but lefty doesn't like that...

Remember when Bill Clinton said he was disturbed by the large amounts of illegal aliens coming across the southern border? That was Democrats as late as 1995 making very clear statements.

 

It's beyond absurd to think any of the founders would be counting illegal aliens from Mexico so they could be given representation in congress but that's what the courts decided the constitution says.

[forehandplus]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, well we used to count them and identify them as illegals but lefty doesn't like that...

False

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

[NorthernRyland]

2 minutes ago, forehandplus said:

False

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

This has been going on for many years I'm sure. So what? I'm saying it's wrong and the courts are against the American people. No sane country would tolerate this.

[forehandplus]

26 minutes ago, genericptr said:

Sure enough the courts may have got Trump on a technicality. Those documents were not perfect. What I'm saying is that this is a corruption of what the founders believed and from the perspective of many Americans, an injustice. 

 

 

You claimed something quite different in post #66. The evidence showing that the first census clearly aligns with the Constitution shows that your understanding of what the founding fathers believed is false and based on your anachronistic view of US history. 

[NorthernRyland]

It occurs to me we're being baited. Is there actually any public intent to utilize the population count that includes non-citizens? It sounds like a tourist could get a census form and fill it out but they're not counting them for congressional seats I would hope.

 

If that's the case we've been played by the media once again and I don't care one way or another.

[forehandplus]

5 minutes ago, genericptr said:

This has been going on for many years I'm sure. So what? I'm saying it's wrong and the courts are against the American people. No sane country would tolerate this.

And what credentials do you have to speak for the American people? Polls - even Fox News polls - show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to the Trump administrations immigration policies.

[NorthernRyland]

Just now, forehandplus said:

You claimed something quite different in post #66. The evidence showing that the first census clearly aligns with the Constitution shows that your understanding of what the founding fathers believed is false and based on your anachronistic view of US history. 

Are you saying the founding fathers wanted to count non-citizens and use their numbers to allocate seats in congress? Are you really saying that or are we getting baited by media?

[forehandplus]

1 minute ago, genericptr said:

It occurs to me we're being baited. Is there actually any public intent to utilize the population count that includes non-citizens? It sounds like a tourist could get a census form and fill it out but they're not counting them for congressional seats I would hope.

 

If that's the case we've been played by the media once again and I don't care one way or another.

It doesn't merely occur to me that you are mistaken. You are mistaken. For the past 4 censuses there were no questions asking if the respondent was a citizen or not on the short form. Only on the long form. And the only questions ever asked was if the respondent was a citizen, not if he or she was in the USA legally.

[forehandplus]

2 minutes ago, genericptr said:

Are you saying the founding fathers wanted to count non-citizens and use their numbers to allocate seats in congress? Are you really saying that or are we getting baited by media?

I've given you the passage from the Constitution concerning this. I've shown you how the first census aligned with this passage.  What more do you want?

[NorthernRyland]

1 minute ago, forehandplus said:

I've given you the passage from the Constitution concerning this. I've shown you how the first census aligned with this passage.  What more do you want?

That's nonsense they would have allowed non-citizens to get representation in congress. Beyond stupid to even consider this.

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, forehandplus said:

It doesn't merely occur to me that you are mistaken. You are mistaken. For the past 4 censuses there were no questions asking if the respondent was a citizen or not on the short form. Only on the long form. And the only questions ever asked was if the respondent was a citizen, not if he or she was in the USA legally.

So why does the left not want to ask if people are citizens?

 

In any event, we know pretty accurately how many non-citizens are in the country legally, so by counting the total number of non citizens and just do the math.

 

Is like if you ask if people are blind, you don't have to ask how many people aren't blind.

 

But you already knew that yes?

[forehandplus]

1 minute ago, genericptr said:

That's nonsense they would have allowed non-citizens to get representation in congress. Beyond stupid to even consider this.

 

You are projecting your obsession with citizenship on to the founding fathers whose concerns were quite different. Are you aware the slaves were not citizens yet each one counted as 3/5 of person in the census?

[forehandplus]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

So why does the left not want to ask if people are citizens?

 

In any event, we know pretty accurately how many non-citizens are in the country legally, so by counting the total number of non citizens and just do the math.

 

Is like if you ask if people are blind, you don't have to ask how many people aren't blind.

 

But you already knew that yes?

So you acknowledge that you were in error when you claimed that earlier censuses did not seek to identify if respondents were illegal? 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I do

You're one person, not a lot of people.

 

I'm pretty sure that any well conducted survey would show that people who want to let illegal aliens vote are a very small minority.  Perhaps a minority of one.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, genericptr said:

Sure enough the courts may have got Trump on a technicality. Those documents were not perfect. What I'm saying is that this is a corruption of what the founders believed and from the perspective of many Americans, an injustice. 

 

If anyone can enter the country illegally and be used for political representation then we simply do not have a country anymore. All I can take from this is that the courts must be against the American people.

It looks like conservatives are strict constructionists on the US Constitution, except when they don't like what it says.  Then they imagine they can "interpret" what the founding fathers really meant.

 

Can we apply this thinking to the Second Amendment?

[forehandplus]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So why does the left not want to ask if people are citizens?

 

In any event, we know pretty accurately how many non-citizens are in the country legally, so by counting the total number of non citizens and just do the math.

 

Is like if you ask if people are blind, you don't have to ask how many people aren't blind.

 

But you already knew that yes?

To answer your first question, because the left knows that the reason the Trump administration introduced this question on the short form was to discourage undocumented aliens from being counted. Given the rhetoric of Trump and company, how could it be otherwise. And the Supreme Court upheld the fact that the Trump administration lied about its reasons for inserting the question.

I wish that estimates were allowed. But the conservative justices on the Supreme court disallowed that citing the phrase "actual enumeration" as the reason. So they disallowed the use of the sophisticated techniques used by business and industry to get a more accurate count. This had the effect of lowering the count of minorities and undocumented aliens. 

The Census isn't just about counting heads.  Lots of other questions in it.

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

You're one person, not a lot of people.

 

I'm pretty sure that any well conducted survey would show that people who want to let illegal aliens vote are a very small minority.  Perhaps a minority of one.

 

Is a small minority not a lot of people? I imagine it's a much larger percentage then people dying of covid, would you not agree?

 

I certainly think more people say illegals should be allowed to vote than think the moon is made of cheese, blue or otherwise.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by Yellowtail
added text

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, forehandplus said:

To answer your first question, because the left knows that the reason the Trump administration introduced this question on the short form was to discourage undocumented aliens from being counted. Given the rhetoric of Trump and company, how could it be otherwise. And the Supreme Court upheld the fact that the Trump administration lied about its reasons for inserting the question.

I wish that estimates were allowed. But the conservative justices on the Supreme court disallowed that citing the phrase "actual enumeration" as the reason. So they disallowed the use of the sophisticated techniques used by business and industry to get a more accurate count. This had the effect of lowering the count of minorities and undocumented aliens. 

The Census isn't just about counting heads.  Lots of other questions in it.

So but for Trump, the left would want to determine how many illegal aliens are in the country?

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, forehandplus said:

So you acknowledge that you were in error when you claimed that earlier censuses did not seek to identify if respondents were illegal? 

 

I never claimed that earlier censused claimed to identify in respondents were illegal, you are mistaken. 

 

In any event, is because we haven't done it before a good reason to not do something now? 

 

 

[forehandplus]

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So but for Trump, the left would want to determine how many illegal aliens are in the country?

Absolutely. Since it's most likely that they are being undercounted.

[forehandplus]

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I never claimed that earlier censused claimed to identify in respondents were illegal, you are mistaken. 

 

In any event, is because we haven't done it before a good reason to not do something now? 

 

 

So you didn't write this?

"Yes, well we used to count them and identify them as illegals but lefty doesn't like that..."

[Yellowtail]

31 minutes ago, forehandplus said:

Absolutely. Since it's most likely that they are being undercounted.

 

How are they being counted?