Jump to content

Counting Illegal Aliens

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted

Should illegal aliens be counted in the Census?  Should the number of illegal aliens be used in apportioning seats in the House of Representatives?

 

Of course they should be counted.  Hell, we count toilets.

 

Of course they shouldn't count in apportioning seats in the House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

Should illegal aliens be counted in the Census?  Should the number of illegal aliens be used in apportioning seats in the House of Representatives?

 

Of course they should be counted.  Hell, we count toilets.

 

Of course they shouldn't count in apportioning seats in the House.

Yes. No. Legal immigrants shouldn't be counted for House seats either. Everyone who resides somewhere should be counted for census and for tax and spend purposes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89667

Posted
Posted (edited)

As somebody who has looked at census forms for many hundreds of people from the 1700s up through the 1900s, for a big chunk of that time, many of them had some form of citizenship question.

And you know what?  Many people lied their asses off for one reason or another, or the person answering (such as a child) didn't know.    In the 1920 census, I saw people that I know were born in Germany claim they were born in the US, and it's pretty obvious why.  I've seen a shit-ton of Irish-born people claim they were born in the US (can't blame the bog-jumpers).  Hell, I've seen Armenians claim they were human beings.

Many people will lie about being born here, or they will simply leave out relatives/whoever living at that address that weren't born there.

Doesn't matter though, Congress isn't exactly providing all of the funding the Census Bureau needs for the 2020 Census.

Hmmm..It's almost like somebody in Congress doesn't want an accurate count.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
futureman

futureman 22462

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

constitution is pretty clear here, count everyone 

and they should be 100% count for house redistricting, you represent everyone in your district. EVERYONE 

well, then I guess we’ll just have to get rid of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Are they helping to build the wall with veterans funds?   That might make a difference. Are they paying off porn stars with campaign funds?  Are they schlepping at Trump owned properties on the weekend? How do they charge their donuts?  Unallowable?

We're getting fleeced for all of that except the donuts. Tahoe pays for those out of his own pocket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105139

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, plimon said:

Meh, part of the fence replacement project in San Diego. I don't think this is the wall DOTUS is asking for.

 

And....something 99% of folks have no problem with.  Limited physical barriers in places where they make sense - which we’ve been doing for DECADES - makes sense, and is good policy.  A “big beautiful wall” for the sake of making a stupid statement....not so much.  Same reason I have burglar alarm sensors on my external doors and ground level windows.  But not on the ones 30 feet off the ground,  or my internal doors.  Intelligent use of resources and whatnot.  Also, a lot easier to live with (I’d hate it if I had to punch in an alarm code to open the bathroom door in the middle of the night.)

TL;DR version: walls aren’t necessarily stupid.  Trump’s idea of a wall is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShaggyBevo RIP

ShaggyBevo RIP 3868

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Swam@Texas said:

Why do the states think they get to dictate the form the federal government uses for a census?

 

Because the wording of the census law is "all persons" and not all citizens?

Texas will lose reps in the House and electoral votes under a 'citizens' census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
In re UofA

In re UofA 29

Posted
Posted (edited)

Counting illigal aliens would at least quantify the issue. Also, I’m interested in demographics like how many have lived here since infancy, how many have criminal records, how many have jobs and how many pay taxes under another number.  would be curious where they all reside. I think rural locations/farming communities are more prevelant than people realize. I’ve only seen estimates.

Edited by In re UofA
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
22 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

Are we counting only illegal aliens with this or are we counting non-citizens ah fuck it

I think they only plan to count non-citizens, with no distinction between illegal aliens and legal ones.  I don't know how they plan to treat a tourist who is in a hotel.  It doesn't seem to make sense to count them, but ...

I wouldn't count tourists and I'd have separate categories for illegals and green card holders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think they only plan to count non-citizens, with no distinction between illegal aliens and legal ones.  I don't know how they plan to treat a tourist who is in a hotel.  It doesn't seem to make sense to count them, but ...

I wouldn't count tourists and I'd have separate categories for illegals and green card holders.

They count residents, including homeless residents, as best they can. They don't count tourists or people staying in a hotel. If a double count happens, its because you own two residences and filled out a form at both. 

 

And of course you want to minimize the count. Your state is dieing on the vine and hasn't had any appreciable population or economic growth in decades. Instead of trying to undercount California so you can steal more of their tax money, you should work on making Birmingham as attractive as Atlanta so you don't lose the next generation of educated Alabamans to Georgia like you lost the last few generations. Instead of spending your time focusing on how to make the rest of the US as bad as Bama, you should work on making Bama great again for the first time ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105139

Posted
Posted
They count residents, including homeless residents, as best they can. They don't count tourists or people staying in a hotel. If a double count happens, its because you own two residences and filled out a form at both. 
 
And of course you want to minimize the count. Your state is dieing on the vine and hasn't had any appreciable population or economic growth in decades. Instead of trying to undercount California so you can steal more of their tax money, you should work on making Birmingham as attractive as Atlanta so you don't lose the next generation of educated Alabamans to Georgia like you lost the last few generations. Instead of spending your time focusing on how to make the rest of the US as bad as Bama, you should work on making Bama great again for the first time ever. 

Yeah...not gonna happen. Bama’s only hope is to drag the rest of the country down to their cesspool level, then beat em with experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11304

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, plimon said:

Meh, part of the fence replacement project in San Diego. I don't think this is the wall DOTUS is asking for.

 

That's because it's not.  This is the replacement of a wall that was built in the 90's and the work on it's replacement started in 2009...so I guess this is Obama's wall.

Quote

The project, which started in 2009, will replace a 2.25-mile section in the California-Mexico border wall, according to a statement last month from US Customs and Border Protection.

The original wall in that section, built in the 1990s, had been built from recycled metal scraps and old landing mat materials, the agency said.

Of course that won't stop Trumpkins from celebrating his "win".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think they only plan to count non-citizens, with no distinction between illegal aliens and legal ones.  I don't know how they plan to treat a tourist who is in a hotel.  It doesn't seem to make sense to count them, but ...

I wouldn't count tourists and I'd have separate categories for illegals and green card holders.

ok. so you admit that counting non-citizens is agnostic as to legality of residence. and don't think about the tourist in the hotel. they don't give questionnaires to tourist checking in at a hotel, nor do they send follow up clerks to a hotel. they do count the homeless in shelters. they do it in one night, but i guarantee you the homeless are vastly undercounted.

i worked on the census in 2010. it was an enlightening experience, for many reasons, but one i can highlight that relates directly to this thread is that the hispanic spanish-speaking population does not trust the government, and tend to not answer the questions when i showed up to the door. they don't like "white" as a race, even though the census considers hispanics whites and "hispanic" as an ethnicity. most would just answer "guatemalan" or whatever country of origin for race. that's when they would answer at all.

given that anecdote, what effect do you think asking in a census about citizenship is going to have on the accuracy of the final numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

...

given that anecdote, what effect do you think asking in a census about citizenship is going to have on the accuracy of the final numbers?

If your objective is to count the number of citizens (which is the proper objective), it will help make that number more accurate than not asking the question.  It will discourage the inclusion of illegal aliens in the total.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
plimon

plimon 190

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

That's because it's not.  This is the replacement of a wall that was built in the 90's and the work on it's replacement started in 2009...so I guess this is Obama's wall.

Of course that won't stop Trumpkins from celebrating his "win".

Yep, that was the point I was trying to make. This is not a "spike the football" moment for Trumpkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If your objective is to count the number of citizens (which is the proper objective), it will help make that number more accurate than not asking the question.  It will discourage the inclusion of illegal aliens in the total.  

Quote

The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in the Congress.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Did they count Indians who were clearly "living in the newly created country"?  Did they count tourists who were clearly "living in the newly created country"?  I think not.  I think it's clear they were trying to count citizens.

A good test would be to look at the 1820 census and see if they counted Indians in Illinois and Alabama.  I'd almost bet the house they didn't.  But I'll change my position on the question if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted (edited)

what, you don't like tahoe-style socratic?

they counted some indians.

Quote

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 mean, these facts are out there. laid out in the constitution, even.

my point is that a representative represents those that reside in his district, not just those in his district that are citizens. that would also probably include those here illegally, whether or not they are dreamers. the representative should also represent those persons in his/her district who cannot vote.

do we count felons in jail? do we count felons who have served their term?

it seems to me that your point is that the numbers should only represent voters. i don't agree with that.

Edited by hayden_horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That isn't my point.  That would be stupid.  We clearly count felons.  And children.  And, before the Nineteenth Amendment, women.  And, non land owners.  And people who didn't pay their poll tax.  And people newly moved from another state.  And people who flunked the literacy test.  And newly freed slaves.

I think we've always tried to count citizens.  I think that's the intent. 

But I'm not a Constitutional scholar.  Maybe we'll find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That isn't my point.  That would be stupid.  We clearly count felons.  And children.  And, before the Nineteenth Amendment, women.  And, non land owners.  And people who didn't pay their poll tax.  And people newly moved from another state.  And people who flunked the literacy test.  And newly freed slaves.

I think we've always tried to count citizens.  I think that's the intent. 

But I'm not a Constitutional scholar.  Maybe we'll find out.

i supplied you with the text from the constitution that flat out says they wanted to count non-citizens. they counted tax paying indians and 3/5 of every slave. 

you can know the intent because i quoted it above. non-citizens were absolutely counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

What is your point?  The question is whether they counted non-citizens other than slaves (for which the Constitution provided for).  I don't think they did.  Do you?

In 1790, they counted Indians who paid taxes and did not count those who didn't.  They also considered the census a count of inhabitants or residents rather than citizens.  Remember that in 1790, anyone could get off a boat and just start living here.  All those Irish and Italians were counted. Indians could also move into town and stop living in the "wild" and be counted.  Illegal immigrants, as they exist now, would have been counted in every single census since the first one in 1790.  In 1790, they'd be considered legal however.

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1790instructions.pdf

 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted
If your objective is to count the number of citizens (which is the proper objective), it will help make that number more accurate than not asking the question.  It will discourage the inclusion of illegal aliens in the total.  


Discounting the inclusion of anyone renders the process unconstitutional. The point is to count persons, not citizens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i supplied you with the text from the constitution that flat out says they wanted to count non-citizens. they counted tax paying indians and 3/5 of every slave. 

you can know the intent because i quoted it above. non-citizens were absolutely counted.

Come on.  When you say "taxes" do you mean ad valorem taxes or taxes on whiskey?  I'll bet the house it wasn't just any taxes.  I don't believe they counted Indians who lived on land that was untaxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

Come on.  When you say "taxes" do you mean ad valorem taxes or taxes on whiskey?  I'll bet the house it wasn't just any taxes.  I don't believe they counted Indians who lived on land that was untaxed.

it's not what i mean. it's what the constitutional text from article 1, section 2 means. they weren't counting voters. they were counting people that they considered part of the nation. that included 3/5 of each slave. did these slaves pay taxes? no. they did not own land, but they were (partially) counted anyway.

the point was not to count voters. as you said, they counted women and children too.

it wasn't about counting white land owning men. it was about counting those who lived in the district. that they carved out non-tax paying indians is an interesting exception, but it in no way makes your apparent point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...