Counting Illegal Aliens

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

If you can back this up I'll change my position.  I want to know about Alabama or Illinois in 1820 as a test.  I don't want to know about some Indian working on a plantation in suburban Boston.

 

Here's a start:

http://www.archives.alabama.gov/timeline/al1801.html

Your test is stupid and irrelevant.  You would use the analogy to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens.  When in reality, the distinction between Indians living IN society and those living OUTSIDE society was that of residents vs. non-residents.  Which is exactly the distinction in the Constitution -- residents are counted.  Non-residents are not.  Citizenship is not mentioned, and citizenship and residence are indeed separate concepts.

You think you're being clever, yet again.

You're not.

[DixonHur 11304]

So, Tahoe, is your point that because our forefathers were racist SOBs that we need to carry on that proud tradition today?

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

So, Tahoe, is your point that because our forefathers were racist SOBs that we need to carry on that proud tradition today?

Nope.  My point is that the intent of the Census is to count legal residents, and exclude illegals.

[Newdoc 3440]

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

So, we now know that coyotes can use the spiral staircase and climb through a second story window with no alarm triggered.  No wonder you got problems. Pony up and buy more sensors.

[Newdoc 3440]

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

So, we now know that coyotes can use the spiral staircase and climb through a second story window with no alarm triggered.  No wonder you got problems. Pony up and buy more sensors.

[hayden_horn 11362]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Nope.  My point is that the intent of the Census is to count legal residents, and exclude illegals.

except:

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.

all other Persons. this isn't hard, dude. the intent is right there in front of you!

[FondrenRoad 4378]

14 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If you can back this up I'll change my position.  I want to know about Alabama or Illinois in 1820 as a test.  I don't want to know about some Indian working on a plantation in suburban Boston.

 

Here's a start:

http://www.archives.alabama.gov/timeline/al1801.html

Why?  You're talking about illegal immigrants. They don't come here and live in the woods.  They are directly equivalent to the Indian working on a plantation in Boston because they come here and work, pay taxes, and integrate with our economic system.  

You're also trying way too hard here.  Indians pre-existed colonization and the USA.  They had an option to be "in" or "out" because of that.  They were here first.  Nobody else was.  Everyone else, no matter where else they came from nor what they intended to do here, was counted.  People who fought for England in the Revolutionary war, but stayed.  Counted.  Chinese workers who worked on the railroad.  Irish people who lived in tenements.  Both counted.  Everyone who stepped off a boat who had no ties to pre-colonial America.  Counted.   

You don't want to be called racist, so tell me why we should count that 1800s Irishman who stowed away on a ship and worked in a city, but we shouldn't count the 2010s Mexican who enters the country with no visa and works in a city?  What is the difference between the two?

Edited March 29, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[DixonHur 11304]

7 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Nope.  My point is that the intent of the Census is to count legal residents, and exclude illegals.

On what are you basing this supposition?  As Hayden has pointed out, the Constitution seems to be pretty clear on this.

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

I believe the intent was, and is, to count everybody who is a legal part of our civilization.  That was what they seemed to do in 1820, and that is what I think we should do today.  Ask yourself who was considered to be a legal resident in our civilization in 1820, and find somebody who wasn't counted the way I prescribe.

 

I think the Constitutional debate will be about whether "persons" means "legal persons".  I won't presume Constitutional expertise.  It's just my opinion.

Edited March 29, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[JBJ 3654]

The intent was to count tax-payers. The 3/5ths Compromise reduced the slaves states portion of House votes, but also reduced the tax burden of slave states by the same amount.

Less taxes meant fewer votes and vice-versa.  This also makes sense for why Indians were not counted.

Edited March 29, 2018 by JBJ

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

The intent was to count tax-payers. ...

Bullshit.  They counted children, among a long, long list of people who were legal residents who didn't pay taxes.

 

They counted all legal people and no illegal people.  Or they tried.

[JBJ 3654]

Not bullshit.  The US Census served a dual purpose:

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

The original federal tax was a capitation tax.  If you were counted towards taxation, you were counted towards representation.  That was the reason for the revolution to begin with.

Edited March 29, 2018 by JBJ

[Brisketexan 105139]

40 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

So, we now know that coyotes can use the spiral staircase and climb through a second story window with no alarm triggered.  No wonder you got problems. Pony up and buy more sensors.

God.....dammit.

[DanRydell 799]

I believe the intent was, and is, to count everybody who is a legal part of our civilization.  That was what they seemed to do in 1820, and that is what I think we should do today.  Ask yourself who was considered to be a legal resident in our civilization in 1820, and find somebody who wasn't counted the way I prescribe.
 
I think the Constitutional debate will be about whether "persons" means "legal persons".  I won't presume Constitutional expertise.  It's just my opinion.

There’s no debate. The law is clear that when the Constitution says person, it means persons and when it says citizens, it means citizens.

[Brisketexan 105139]

9 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

There’s no debate. The law is clear that when the Constitution says person, it means persons and when it says citizens, it means citizens.

 

Well, sure.  But perhaps you didn't get the memo about mexicans and Tahoe and old angry white dudes like him being REALLY pissed about the browns.  I coulda sworn you got that memo.

[Hornius Emeritus 12462]

18 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

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.

 

 

It's actually "by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,"  but your point is well taken. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, sure.  But perhaps you didn't get the memo about mexicans and Tahoe and old angry white dudes like him being REALLY pissed about the browns.  I coulda sworn you got that memo.

Me?  Angry?  You've got the wrong guy, Mr Anger.

 

My prejudice is against people who hurt our economy, not any particular group.  I like people in any group who are big contributors to our economy.

[Brisketexan 105139]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Me?  Angry?  You've got the wrong guy, Mr Anger.

 

My prejudice is against people who hurt our economy, not any particular group.  I like people in any group who are big contributors to our economy.

Then re-write the Constitution to reflect your prejudice.  Otherwise, stick with the one we've got.  Read it.  I'm sure there's someone in Alabama -- or perhaps an adjoining state -- who can read it to you.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Brisketexan

[TahoeHorn 107]

Ah, I'm too old to start a career in Constitutional law.  I'm happy to entertain myself on the Internet.

 

It's not like my opinion (or anybody else's here) will decide this issue.

Edited March 29, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[SmokeyBear1861 107]