US Census

[TigerGrowls]

All Americans should be able to unite behind the idea that only American citizens should be counted in the census.



NEW: House Oversight Chairman James Comer calls for a new bill that would only count American citizens on the U.S. census.

You can bet that the bill will be strongly opposed by Democrats.

Why? Because if the bill were to become law, Biden’s illegal immigration scheme would have been a complete waste.

More illegal immigrants in Democrat cities means more electoral votes which means more power and means winning more elections.

 

[TigerGrowls]

BREAKING.🚨

House Oversight committee votes for citizenship question to be added to the census.

The Equal Representation Act passed on straight party line vote 22-20.

Every Democratic Congressman *OPPOSED* — because the party stands to lose control of House districts due to the unconstitutional representation of illegal aliens.

A House floor vote on the citizenship question will be held next week.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

All Americans should be able to unite behind the idea that only American citizens should be counted in the census.

View embedded media

NEW: House Oversight Chairman James Comer calls for a new bill that would only count American citizens on the U.S. census.

You can bet that the bill will be strongly opposed by Democrats.

Why? Because if the bill were to become law, Biden’s illegal immigration scheme would have been a complete waste.

More illegal immigrants in Democrat cities means more electoral votes which means more power and means winning more elections.

I think they should be counted as people in the US but not as a means to apportion the US House of Representatives or where to send money based on population

IN OTHER WORDS WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE SO WE CAN DEPORT THE WHOLE LOT

NOT TO GIVE THEM ANY BENEFITS

 

[scotchtiger]

Curious as to the resident dems thoughts on this. It seems quite obvious that the census should measure US citizens only for the purpose of allocating congressional representation.

 

[scotchtiger]

Curious as to the resident dems thoughts on this. It seems quite obvious that the census should measure US citizens only for the purpose of allocating congressional representation.

Bumping this. Genuinely curious if @dpic73 @nytigerfan @iceheart08 @WapPride @LaniKaiTiger etc think we should include undocumented immigrants in the population measurement used to allocate congressional representation.

 

[CUT93]

Bumping this. Genuinely curious if @dpic73 @nytigerfan @iceheart08 @WapPride @LaniKaiTiger etc think we should include undocumented immigrants in the population measurement used to allocate congressional representation.

Good luck with that. It's obvious that only citizens should be considered for purposes of congressional representation, but I doubt any of them will say it.

 

[yoshi121374]

Bumping this. Genuinely curious if @dpic73 @nytigerfan @iceheart08 @WapPride @LaniKaiTiger etc think we should include undocumented immigrants in the population measurement used to allocate congressional representation.

I don't think we should for purposes of zoning or elections.

I do think that counting them would provide some valuable information.

 

[scotchtiger]

I don't think we should for purposes of zoning or elections.

I do think that counting them would provide some valuable information.

Agree, and I think that’s the point of the bill.

 

[LaniKaiTiger]

Bumping this. Genuinely curious if @dpic73 @nytigerfan @iceheart08 @WapPride @LaniKaiTiger etc think we should include undocumented immigrants in the population measurement used to allocate congressional representation.

Yes.

"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."

When you ask, should they be included or not, what do you mean by should? The Constitution uses the word "person." Slaves are also counted under the 3/5ths Compromise even though they couldn't vote or hold office. May as well throw in women who couldn't vote or hold office either. I think the most plain interpretation is that when the Constitution says people, it means all people. The Census is there to count everyone.

If the Constitution said "citizen," it'd be a different story. But it doesn't. It's not "obvious" that only citizens should be counted. I think the burden is on you to show that given the text.

They are not entitled to citizenship and the right to vote. I'll also support what I consider to be reasonable measures to slow illegal immigration and lesson the flow of drugs and people over the southern border. I prefer amnesty in exchange for tax penalties and documentation over deportation.

 

[dpic73]

Bumping this. Genuinely curious if @dpic73 @nytigerfan @iceheart08 @WapPride @LaniKaiTiger etc think we should include undocumented immigrants in the population measurement used to allocate congressional representation.

It's not something I've ever dug into though I know this has been the law since 1790, so it's not some recent ploy to add more representation to blue states. Texas and Florida have also benefitted from the counts and they would have benefitted even more if Abbott and DeSantis didn't ship them to blue states.

I'm open minded about it though and would like to hear the arguments from both sides.

But to be honest, I'm tired of having to be outraged so I'll sit this one out.

 

[yoshi121374]

Agree, and I think that’s the point of the bill.

One of the issues we have with regards to Immigration is the complete ignorance and understanding of the difference between legal immigrants who have been let into the country on visas, or while awaiting trial/adjudication for asylum, and illegals who have snuck in and are hiding on our country.

This ignorance is capitalized on for Political reasons every election cycle.

 

[The89Tiger]

Sounds like the constitution says to count them.

I have no issue with that. Protecting the citizens right to vote should also be paramount. But it should also be unrelated to counting.

Red states like Texas should benefit from counting them.

 

[scotchtiger]

Yes.

"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."

When you ask, should they be included or not, what do you mean by should? The Constitution uses the word "person." Slaves are also counted under the 3/5ths Compromise even though they couldn't vote either. I think the most plain interpretation is that when the Constitution says people, it means all people. The Census is there to count everyone.

If the Constitution said "citizen," it'd be a different story. But it doesn't. It's "obvious" that only citizens should be counted isn't obvious.

They are not entitled to citizenship and the right to vote. I'll also support what I consider to be reasonable measures to slow illegal immigration and lesson the flow of drugs and people over the southern border. I prefer amnesty in exchange for tax penalties and documentation over deportation.

The concept of citizenship as it relates to the United States did not exist when the constitution was written. The first steps toward it occurred later in the century, in 1790. So since it did not exist, of course it could not have been incorporated into the document.

Knowing that, we obviously also know that the omission of “citizen” is meaningless as far as intent.

I think this bill gets it right. Count everyone, but clearly separate citizens from non-citizens and only citizens count toward congressional representation.

 

[LaniKaiTiger]

The concept of citizenship as it relates to the United States did not exist when the constitution was written. The first steps toward it occurred later in the century, in 1790. So since it did not exist, of course it could not have been incorporated into the document.

Knowing that, we obviously also know that the omission of “citizen” is meaningless as far as intent.

I think this bill gets it right. Count everyone, but clearly separate citizens from non-citizens and only citizens count toward congressional representation

What?

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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."

Does it spell out explicitly what it means to be a citizen? No, but the document clearly assumes there's some idea of citizens and non-citizens, and it does not use the word "citizen" when discussing apportioning representatives immediately after establishing that "citizen" does indeed mean something as far as other political rights. In 1790, they made an effort to clarify citizenship. That doesn't imply your argument.

 

[scotchtiger]

What?

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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."

Does it spell out explicitly what it means to be a citizen? No, but the document clearly assumes there's some idea of citizens and non-citizens, and it does not use the word "citizen" when discussing apportioning representatives immediately after establishing that "citizen" does indeed mean something as far as other political rights. In 1790, they made an effort to clarify citizenship. That doesn't imply your argument.

Sorry, the concept of citizenship for newcomers to the US, which is what is in question here. This was first addressed in 1790.

 

[LaniKaiTiger]

Sorry, the concept of citizenship for newcomers to the US, which is what is in question here. This was first addressed in 1790.

That’s a separate issue from counting illegal immigrants for apportioning representatives.

It would be part of the issue if the Constitution says “citizens” are counted. It doesn’t. It says “persons”

We’re agreed that you can’t waltz over the border illegally and become a citizen overnight

 

[scotchtiger]

That’s a separate issue from counting illegal immigrants for apportioning representatives.

It would be part of the issue if the Constitution says “citizens” are counted. It doesn’t. It says “persons”

We’re agreed that you can’t waltz over the border illegally and become a citizen overnight

The constitution also said slaves were 3/5 a person, so perhaps we can agree that some improvements here and there are appropriate.

 

[LaniKaiTiger]

The constitution also said slaves were 3/5 a person, so perhaps we can agree that some improvements here and there are appropriate.

For sure, but on that point, they were at least counted to an extent. Women were counted too. I think that's a clear precedent that for the Census and apportioning representatives, you count everyone without regard to other political rights or their status as "citizens."

 

[nytigerfan]

The constitution also said slaves were 3/5 a person, so perhaps we can agree that some improvements here and there are appropriate.

I think it is funny how the right will cherry pick which parts of the constitution need to "improved" or can be outright ignored when applying historical context.

What about this amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms for a militia is written in stone, but things like this are fair game.

Y'all cherry pick the constitution worse than you cherry pick the Bible.

 

[scotchtiger]

I think it is funny how the right will cherry pick which parts of the constitution need to "improved" or can be outright ignored when applying historical context.

What about this amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms for a militia is written in stone, but things like this are fair game.

Y'all cherry pick the constitution worse than you cherry pick the Bible.

I’ve said on here multiple times that I’m open to some improvements in firearm regulation. As an example, I suggested that we treat high capacity, rapid fire platforms like the AR-15 like we do silencers. You have a much more involved application process, have to pay for and be approved for a tax stamp, plus the time it takes to do all of that is like 6-9 months.

So as is often the case, “y’all” doesn’t apply to me here.

 

[LaniKaiTiger]

I think it is funny how the right will cherry pick which parts of the constitution need to "improved" or can be outright ignored when applying historical context.

What about this amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms for a militia is written in stone, but things like this are fair game.

Y'all cherry pick the constitution worse than you cherry pick the Bible.

They like the last four words, but they won’t read the first four

 

[nytigerfan]

I’ve said on here multiple times that I’m open to some improvements in firearm regulation. As an example, I suggested that we treat high capacity, rapid fire platforms like the AR-15 like we do silencers. You have a much more involved application process, have to pay for and be approved for a tax stamp, plus the time it takes to do all of that is like 6-9 months.

So as is often the case, “y’all” doesn’t apply to me here.

Meh, I get that. But you have said that you vote straight ticket republican, and they are the ones I am talking about here.

The point remains, the pubs are hard core constitutionalists right up to the point that they see an opportunity to grab some extra seats in Congress. Then all of a sudden we should be analyzing the constitution with a historical lens.

 

[scotchtiger]

Meh, I get that. But you have said that you vote straight ticket republican, and they are the ones I am talking about here.

The point remains, the pubs are hard core constitutionalists right up to the point that they see an opportunity to grab some extra seats in Congress. Then all of a sudden we should be analyzing the constitution with a historical lens.

Agree with you about most pubs on that contradiction.

 

[WapPride]

Bumping this. Genuinely curious if @dpic73 @nytigerfan @iceheart08 @WapPride @LaniKaiTiger etc think we should include undocumented immigrants in the population measurement used to allocate congressional representation.

Truthfully I've never paid much attention to this, nor do I have strong feelings one way or another about it. I'm not a strict constitutionalist, and believe that our interpretation of the Constitution should evolve as we evolve as a country and people. I don't believe undocumented immigration was a concern, or really even something that truly existed in the mind of the framers, so it's hard for me to make a judgement call on this. I do believe that all Americans, citizens and undocumented alike, should be represented. It's also hard for me to to say that undocumented immigrants shouldn't be counted considering the MASSIVE impact they have on our economy.

tldr: I've never really paid it much attention, and don't have strong feelings one way or another about it.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Curious as to the resident dems thoughts on this. It seems quite obvious that the census should measure US citizens only for the purpose of allocating congressional representation.

I generally agree with this (that only US Citizens should be counted for the purpose of Representatives). BUT the constitution DOES NOT say this... Here's what the Constitution says:
------------------
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 toService for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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 Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.
-------------------

No mention of citizenship there... Only Free Persons and 3/5 of all other persons (that's Slaves at the time). And remember this same document SPECIFIES that the POTUS must be a natural born citizen, so the term was in use at the time and intentionally not used here.

So while I tend to agree with OP, the founding fathers DID NOT. Any argument that this is OBVIOUS, is not a good one IMHO. And you can certainly make a good reasoned argument against US citizens only without being a bad no good Deep State Communist.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Truthfully I've never paid much attention to this, nor do I have strong feelings one way or another about it. I'm not a strict constitutionalist, and believe that our interpretation of the Constitution should evolve as we evolve as a country and people. I don't believe undocumented immigration was a concern, or really even something that truly existed in the mind of the framers, so it's hard for me to make a judgement call on this. I do believe that all Americans, citizens and undocumented alike, should be represented. It's also hard for me to to say that undocumented immigrants shouldn't be counted considering the MASSIVE impact they have on our economy.

tldr: I've never really paid it much attention, and don't have strong feelings one way or another about it.

This is a really good post. I tend to agree that I don't feel strongly either way. If you read the constitution, it addresses this and non citizens were indeed part of the census. Now times change... for instance, the Senate was NOT directly ELECTED until the 17th ammendment... They were appointed/elected by state legislatures prior to this. So IMHO, to include only US Citizens this would require an amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[CUTiger1977]

 

[WapPride]

A general rule is if you're aligned with Stephen Miller, you're in the wrong.

 

[hopefultiger13]

View embedded media

So from what I'm understanding, the Census (for the purposes of congressional representation) counts PEOPLE, not citizens. That's SPECIFICALLY said. As mentioned above women were included even though they weren't full citizens and couldn't vote until 1920. Hell, even their right to own property was shaky until 1900. Slaves were included by 3/5 of a person even though they were property. Indentured folks were included as well.

Illegal immigrants can get counted for the purposes of congressional representation. I'm not sure how this doesn't actually HELP some Red States in the southern part of the US... Texas, NM, and Florida in particular. To be fair it also helps Blue State California and purple state Arizona.

When someone says women aren't represented properly in congress, how do they measure that? They say that there are x number of women in cogress vs y number of men.

When someone says African Americans aren't represented properly in congress, how do they measure that? They say that there are x number of African Americans vs y number of non African Americans.

However, Illegals can't vote. They don't pay taxes and they specifically can't hold public office at a national level... Again, that's specified by the constitution. As you might expect, there are currently ZERO illegal immigrants in congress. If the number of delegates changes, there will be ZERO illegal immigrants in congress. So how is it that they are getting representation in Congress again?

 

[TigerGrowls]

NEW: House Democrats voted UNANIMOUSLY to represent illegal aliens in the U.S. Congress.

The final vote was 206 Republicans in favor of adding a Citizenship requirement to the U.S. Census. All 202 Democrats voted against it. 11 GOP members did not even bother to vote.

The Citizenship question would lead to the Democratic Party losing seats due to its illegal representation of foreigners in the U.S. Congress.

The Uniparty doesn't represent Americans. It doesn't even try to hide it.