Supreme Court conservatives appear ready to OK Trump’s census citizenship question

[Brisketexan 106618]

An illegal alien is a person.  They were to be counted. Otherwise they would have been excluded.  There is plenty of verbiage about foriegn nationals all over the constitution.  The founders were aware of them.

It really is this simple. If a person is residing in the United States at the time of the census, they are to be counted. That includes non-citizens.

It did when William the Conqueror created the Domesday book 1,000 years ago. Count everyone. Subjects of another sovereign who reside in England included.

[Dahobbs 18185]

1 hour ago, NowThis said:

if someone is counted for political representation, they should be allowed to vote. Is this a conservation or liberal opinion? 

So, when the Constitution said that "3/5ths of other persons" should be counted, is it your understanding that the founders expected slaves to be able to vote? Because, that didn't happen. In fact, the founders left the determination of who could vote to the individual states. The term "persons" was used intentionally to expand the representative power of slave holding states by including people not otherwise entitled to vote or even to citizenship. Hell, back then, the only people who could vote in most states were property owning white males, yet women, children, and non-land owners were still counted. The word "persons" clearly meant everybody residing in the country despite ability to vote, with the only exception being non-taxed Indians. 

[achooloco 1086]

2 hours ago, NowThis said:

exactly, but illegal aliens were not to be counted, correct? 

Look, i know everyone is tying this to Trump hatred, but the issue is much bigger, he's just a temporary blip.   Illegals should not be counted in any measure involving political representation. They can however be counted for government assistance programs (a liberal idea), no problem with that.  

Holy fuck you’re a shit stain. Take a break, don’t respond for your sake fucking retarded bigot. Since you are too dumb to understand the plain words in the constitution.

you want to change it, write an amendment you treasonous cunt. 

Edited July 12, 2019 by achooloco

[Bateshorn 9989]

Yeah,  the Founders has zero qualms about counting people for political purposes while simultaneously denying them suffrage.

[Voldemort86 2259]

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/11/20689015/census-citizenship-question-trump-executive-order

 

here’s a great article summing up the shit show that just played out over the last few weeks. Deception, not a good reason at all, trying to use the census for political gain, more lying, A “law and order” administration trying to not follow the law while spitting on the constitution that they seem to have such a high opinion of.

racist, underhanded, and despicable administration we’re dealing with right now. I’m white btw.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

13 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/11/20689015/census-citizenship-question-trump-executive-order

 

here’s a great article summing up the shit show that just played out over the last few weeks. Deception, not a good reason at all, trying to use the census for political gain, more lying, A “law and order” administration trying to not follow the law while spitting on the constitution that they seem to have such a high opinion of.

racist, underhanded, and despicable administration we’re dealing with right now. I’m white btw.

And incompetent, thankfully, as it should have been easy for them to do what they were trying to accomplish without lying so obviously that Roberts couldn't go along with it. 

[Voldemort86 2259]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

And incompetent, thankfully, as it should have been easy for them to do what they were trying to accomplish without lying so obviously that Roberts couldn't go along with it. 

There would’ve been a pretty big backlash. I think the issue is that most people with an IQ over 75 saw through it and realized he’s doing it for political gain. The census should be viewed as merely a count of the total people in the country. Nothing more nothing less.

[scottsins 2039]

I think the Supreme Court should decide if flooding your state with illegal immigrants should be rewarded with house seats and federal dollars. I don’t believe that was the founder’s intent.  You do.
 You believe their intent was to include citizens of England and France.  Let the Supreme Court decide on the disenfranchise issue. 

They have settled the issue of defining “persons”, Constitutionally, when addressing 14th Amendment cases, which involve guarantees of DP for “persons”.

So now you want them to reverse themselves on an interpretation of the simple word, persons?

Just amend the constitution and you can have what you want.

[Poolflood 845]

On 7/12/2019 at 4:00 PM, Dahobbs said:

So, when the Constitution said that "3/5ths of other persons" should be counted, is it your understanding that the founders expected slaves to be able to vote? Because, that didn't happen. In fact, the founders left the determination of who could vote to the individual states. The term "persons" was used intentionally to expand the representative power of slave holding states by including people not otherwise entitled to vote or even to citizenship. Hell, back then, the only people who could vote in most states were property owning white males, yet women, children, and non-land owners were still counted. The word "persons" clearly meant everybody residing in the country despite ability to vote, with the only exception being non-taxed Indians. 

Two questions:

Why do you think the Constitution was written in this one section to exclude indians not taxed?

And do individual states have the right to allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections?

[Bateshorn 9989]

11 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Two questions:

Why do you think the Constitution was written in this one section to exclude indians not taxed?

And do individual states have the right to allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections?

I’ve got this.

As hard as it may be to believe,  Native Americans were a significant part of American society in the time of ratification,  particularly in the south.  The 5 nations represented a significant portion of the population of Georgia and all of the population of Eventual Alabama and Mississippi.  It seems quaint but many people assumed we would live in peaceful coexistence with the southern tribes,  which would keep there sovereign status.  Thus it was necessary to exclude them from the count because they were seen as only transiting through our lands and not residing. 

Congress banned non citizens from voting in federal elections in 1996.  In theory,  the could vote in state elections,  but good luck in finding a state that wants to print and count separate ballots.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Bateshorn

[Poolflood 845]

10 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I’ve got this.

As hard as it may be to believe,  Native Americans were a significant part of American society in the time of ratification,  particularly in the south.  The 5 nations represented a significant portion of the population of Georgia and all of the population of Eventual Alabama and Mississippi.  It seems quaint but many people assumed we would live in peaceful coexistence with the southern tribes,  which would keep there sovereign status.  Thus it was necessary to exclude them from the count because they were seen as only transiting through our lands and not residing. 

Congress banned non citizens from voting in federal elections in 1996.  In theory,  the could vote in state elections,  but good luck in finding a state that wants to print and count separate ballots.

Thanks on the second part.  You know you're old when you decide to re-read the Constitution on a Saturday night because I forgot when that became law.

The exclusion of indians if I remember correctly had more to do with racism than anything.  Of course the wording could be interpreted that those not willing/allowed to become citizens could be excluded from being counted/represented.

[TDunk 590]

52 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Thanks on the second part.  You know you're old when you decide to re-read the Constitution on a Saturday night because I forgot when that became law.

The exclusion of indians if I remember correctly had more to do with racism than anything.  Of course the wording could be interpreted that those not willing/allowed to become citizens could be excluded from being counted/represented.

 

I doubt he re-read the Constitution.  But thankfully you are young and did not respond on a Saturday night.  

[atomheartbevo 90546]

On 7/12/2019 at 11:38 AM, elfenix said:

 

EXCUSE ME SIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST?

[Bateshorn 9989]

7 hours ago, Poolflood said:

Thanks on the second part.  You know you're old when you decide to re-read the Constitution on a Saturday night because I forgot when that became law.

The exclusion of indians if I remember correctly had more to do with racism than anything.  Of course the wording could be interpreted that those not willing/allowed to become citizens could be excluded from being counted/represented.

It did not, actually.  It’s very hard to fathom now, but an aggressive policy towards natives was not inherent in our national character.  Andrew Jackson, however, did hate Native Americans. He’s the catalyst in this discussion.

 

Natives “owned” large portions of the American south and the legal aspects of that had not yet been worked out, nor had there rights been entirely clarified.  There’s a whole series of Marshall/Taney court decisions during the Jackson administration that cast their fate. 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Bateshorn

[Dahobbs 18185]

14 hours ago, Poolflood said:

The exclusion of indians if I remember correctly had more to do with racism than anything.  Of course the wording could be interpreted that those not willing/allowed to become citizens could be excluded from being counted/represented.

No, the words cannot be interpreted that way. Not unless you completely ignore context, history, logic, and actual text itself. People who resided in the country were counted regardless of citizenship. Slaves (and women for a time) were not citizens and could not be citizens, but they counted as other persons. Indians were excluded not because they could not be citizens, but because they were seen as having separate sovereignty. But, feel free to make up more irrational and illogical bullshit if you must.

[RDCanecutter 26853]

Say I'm President and I think, say, Frenchmen kinda look like far-Eastern Cherokee. What's to stop me from excluding Frenchmen from the census?

And if Frenchmen are too far a stretch, what about Mayans?

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

If Jamal Khashoggi hadn't been butchered by the Saudis, should he have been counted?

[retread 2951]

If Jamal Khashoggi hadn't been butchered by the Saudis, should he have been counted?

That was a long time ago. Didn't Trump decide the Saudis didn't do it? - Trumpkins

[4th&Five 41904]

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

The New York sanctions motion

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6200661-Census-sanctions-7-16-19.html

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

3 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

The New York sanctions motion

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6200661-Census-sanctions-7-16-19.html

 

 

One of the very best things about that motion is that it is not right-justified.  Powerful shit.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Also interesting that they aren't using 28 USC 1927.  Which applies only to lawyers.  Clearly directed more at DoC than the lawyers, although the other provisions cited can be either.

[Captainant 28386]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the very best things about that motion is that it is not right-justified.  Powerful shit.

What do you mean? Is the page justification some super secret squirrel lawyer bamboozle?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

It means that I dislike right justified pleadings, motions, and briefs. A ragged right edge is easier to read and the spacing of a justfied line vexes the eyes.

[bolverk 30230]

Bump

They're back in front of the Supreme Court arguing that only US citizens should be counted in the apportionment of congressional seats. With all the other fuckery going on, this one has just as much, in not more, long lasting consequences. On the face of it, they don't seem to have a case if using the "plain language" of the Constitution, and changing the process would be a clear example of Republican "judicial activism."

Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Plan to Exclude Unauthorized Immigrants in Redistricting

The administration’s efforts, which are subject to practical hurdles, would upset a constitutional consensus and could shift political power from Democratic states to Republican ones.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday on President Trump’s efforts, in the final days of his presidency, to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the calculations used to allocate seats in the House.

If the court rules for the administration, it would upend the agreement that the census must count all residents, whatever their immigration status, and could shift political power from Democratic states to Republican ones.

But the case is riddled with practical complications. Census Bureau officials have said they cannot produce the required data until after Mr. Trump leaves office in January. Even if they do, it is not clear that congressional officials would accept what they may view as flawed calculations, and President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. may try to reverse course once he takes office, prompting further litigation.

The core question in the case — who counts for purposes of congressional reapportionment — is fundamental and largely untested.

The Constitution requires congressional districts to be apportioned “counting the whole number of persons in each state,” using information from the census. To that end, a federal law requires the president to send Congress a statement setting out the number of representatives to which each state is entitled after each decennial census. In the past, those statements have been based on a count of all residents.

Spoiler

 

In July, Mr. Trump issued a memorandum taking a new approach. “For the purpose of the reapportionment of representatives following the 2020 census,” the memo said, “it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.”

“Current estimates suggest that one state is home to more than 2.2 million illegal aliens, constituting more than 6 percent of the state’s entire population,” the memo said, apparently referring to California. “Including these illegal aliens in the population of the state for the purpose of apportionment could result in the allocation of two or three more congressional seats than would otherwise be allocated.”

Removing undocumented immigrants from the count would most likely have the effect of shifting seats to states that are older, whiter and typically more Republican.

Mr. Trump ordered Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, to provide him with two sets of numbers, one including unauthorized immigrants and the other not. It was not clear how Mr. Ross would derive the second set of numbers, as last year the Supreme Court rejected his efforts to add a question on citizenship to the census.
The case before the court, Trump v. New York, No. 20-366, was brought by two sets of plaintiffs, one a group of state and local governments and the United States Conference of Mayors, and the second a coalition of advocacy groups and other nongovernmental organizations.

A three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled that the new policy violated federal law. Two other courts have issued similar rulings, while one said the dispute was not ripe for consideration.

In an unsigned opinion in the case from Manhattan, the panel said the question before it was “not particularly close or complicated.”

“The secretary is required to report a single set of figures to the president — namely, ‘the tabulation of total population by states’ under the ‘decennial census’ — and the president is then required to use those same figures to determine apportionment using the method of equal proportions,” the panel wrote, quoting the relevant statutes.

Much of the panel’s opinion concerned whether the plaintiffs had suffered the sort of injury that gave them standing to sue. It concluded that the new policy made it less likely that undocumented immigrants and others would participate in the census, harming its accuracy.

But the counting is over, and that theory of standing is now open to question. In the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that they also had standing because they would be hurt by the revised apportionment. Jeffrey B. Wall, the acting solicitor general, responded that this second theory was speculative and premature, as Mr. Trump has not acted.

On the core question in the case, the administration told the justices that the term “persons in each state” can be understood to require “a sovereign’s permission to remain within the jurisdiction.”

In response, Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s solicitor general, representing state and local governments, said the administration was asking the court to endorse a stunning departure from the nation’s traditions. “Since the founding,” she wrote, “the population base used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives has never excluded any resident based on immigration status.”

In a separate response, groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union said the administration’s new policy violated the federal statute and the Constitution.

“The president does not have ‘discretion’ to pencil out persons included in the actual enumeration to create a separate apportionment base of his own liking,” the brief said.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Actually, they're not arguing that non-citizens don't count.

Just those whose status here is not lawful.  

Given that the constitution says not much about immigration or citizenship, it's a legit question.  Granted, their motives for asking the question are geared to disenfranchisement or underrepresentation, but it's still a legit question.

[bolverk 30230]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, they're not arguing that non-citizens don't count.

Just those whose status here is not lawful.  

Given that the constitution says not much about immigration or citizenship, it's a legit question.  Granted, their motives for asking the question are geared to disenfranchisement or underrepresentation, but it's still a legit question.

Huh? Can you expand on what you mean there, because I'm not following what you're saying. Also, I'm not a constitutional legal scholar. If, as the article states, that their case is based on Trump's memo which reads:

In July, Mr. Trump issued a memorandum taking a new approach. “For the purpose of the reapportionment of representatives following the 2020 census,” the memo said, “it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.”

“Current estimates suggest that one state is home to more than 2.2 million illegal aliens, constituting more than 6 percent of the state’s entire population,” the memo said, apparently referring to California. “Including these illegal aliens in the population of the state for the purpose of apportionment could result in the allocation of two or three more congressional seats than would otherwise be allocated.”

then, their entire argument is that undocumented residents shouldn't be used to apportion seats. What am I not getting?

[Neonmoon 38130]

Can't wait to see how Miss Originalism Advocate interprets “counting the whole number of persons in each state,” as saying not immigrants. 

[Biff Tannen 46061]

Isn't the problem that if you don't count all people, illegals included, that a ton of money and resources won't get distributed to the states to deal with them (and all the other infrastructure-type issues) and it will just exacerbate the problem?  Or something like that?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13707]

I don't even see how the Census Bureau can even report on illegal immigration when they weren't allowed to ask that question on the census. I have no doubt they can create estimates but that seems like a bad idea to attempt to quickly add this to apportioning the number of congressional seats per state. As with almost everything, the Trump Administration does a horrible job of planning ahead.  

[hobbes2702 13351]

43 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Can't wait to see how Miss Originalism Advocate interprets “counting the whole number of persons in each state,” as saying not immigrants. 

 

[Brisketexan 106618]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Isn't the problem that if you don't count all people, illegals included, that a ton of money and resources won't get distributed to the states to deal with them (and all the other infrastructure-type issues) and it will just exacerbate the problem?  Or something like that?

That's exactly the problem.  They are trying to extrapolate "persons" to mean "eligible or potentially eligible voters."  I guess.  But then that leaves out convicted felons, for example.

Statewide and local governance - the tasks of Congressmen, specifically -- really don't discriminate between legal or illegal residents.  All are required to pay taxes.  All drive on public highways, are educated in public schools, are part of public health, use public water and sewer, etc. etc. ad infinitum.  For all purposes of governance except voting, there's really no significant difference between people with papers and people without (and what about legal immigrants, here on a green card?  The only real differences between the and someone without a green card is the ability to vote and receive certain gov't benefits).

Nevermind the plain text problems.  Persons means persons.

[Dahobbs 18185]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Nevermind the plain text problems.  Persons means persons.

Yup. Even slaves were considered persons under the original text. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

51 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Huh? Can you expand on what you mean there, because I'm not following what you're saying. Also, I'm not a constitutional legal scholar. If, as the article states, that their case is based on Trump's memo which reads:

In July, Mr. Trump issued a memorandum taking a new approach. “For the purpose of the reapportionment of representatives following the 2020 census,” the memo said, “it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.”

“Current estimates suggest that one state is home to more than 2.2 million illegal aliens, constituting more than 6 percent of the state’s entire population,” the memo said, apparently referring to California. “Including these illegal aliens in the population of the state for the purpose of apportionment could result in the allocation of two or three more congressional seats than would otherwise be allocated.”

then, their entire argument is that undocumented residents shouldn't be used to apportion seats. What am I not getting?

Under that argument, legal aliens, that is permanent residents, those on student or H1B or other visas, etc. all count on the census.

Those without legal status do not.

Given that there wasn't much conception of someone unlawfully present at the time of the founding, it seems to me to be a legit question to pose.

I think the answer should probably be "persons are persons," legal, illegal, citizens, aliens, men, women, children, slaves, free people, the whole lot.  Not dogs, cats or hamsters. Still worth asking though.

[hobbes2702 13351]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Under that argument, legal aliens, that is permanent residents, those on student or H1B or other visas, etc. all count on the census.

Those without legal status do not.

Given that there wasn't much conception of someone unlawfully present at the time of the founding, it seems to me to be a legit question to pose.

I think the answer should probably be "persons are persons," legal, illegal, citizens, aliens, men, women, children, slaves, free people, the whole lot.  Not dogs, cats or hamsters. Still worth asking though.

I don’t see how it’s a question worth asking at all. The language in plain and clear 

[Brisketexan 106618]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Under that argument, legal aliens, that is permanent residents, those on student or H1B or other visas, etc. all count on the census.

Those without legal status do not.

Given that there wasn't much conception of someone unlawfully present at the time of the founding, it seems to me to be a legit question to pose.

I think the answer should probably be "persons are persons," legal, illegal, citizens, aliens, men, women, children, slaves, free people, the whole lot.  Not dogs, cats or hamsters. Still worth asking though.

Maybe.  But there are only two states of being here: persons, or "not persons."  While I know that the regime considers brown people subhuman, biology says differently.  Is Jose the sheetrock guy with no papers a "person," or a "not person?"  He ain't a dog or hamster, so he's a person.  Want to amend the Constitution to create that distinction so it's "persons with state-approved status?"  Be my guest, have fun with that process.

[Js1 86939]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I don’t see how it’s a question worth asking at all. The language in plain and clear 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

19 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I don’t see how it’s a question worth asking at all. The language in plain and clear 

Then to end argument on the matter.

But the "Indians not taxed," potentially holds a clue.  Indians are persons, are they not, whether or not taxed?

Indians here in colonial times were generally regarded as subject to a separate sovereign, their own tribe.  If they participated in "white society" and paid taxes, they were regarded as subject to US sovereignty, as most persons would be.

You could quite easily extrapolate that to mean that unlawful aliens are the equivalent of "Indians not taxed."

As stated, I think "persons" probably just means persons, but it's worth settling the question.

Edited November 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31987]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

You left out Alito, who is probably currently the most dangerous justice.

[bolverk 30230]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Under that argument, legal aliens, that is permanent residents, those on student or H1B or other visas, etc. all count on the census.

Those without legal status do not.

Given that there wasn't much conception of someone unlawfully present at the time of the founding, it seems to me to be a legit question to pose.

I think the answer should probably be "persons are persons," legal, illegal, citizens, aliens, men, women, children, slaves, free people, the whole lot.  Not dogs, cats or hamsters. Still worth asking though.

Thank you for explaining what you're saying in a way I can understand the distinction you were making. Like others, I still disagree that their argument has any merit if one were simply looking at the "plain language" of counting all persons in a state and using that to apportion the number of reps.

While I can "get" the rationale for saying something along the lines of "those people cain't vote so why should they count?", I'd say the counterargument is that representatives are bound by a responsibility of representing ALL of their constituents -- voters and non-voters alike -- as they make the rules that govern all of society which, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, includes undocumented workers as it did once did for women and non-property owners before the suffrage was expanded. Hell, even going back the 3/5 compromise, the slaves whom many considered not to be actually "human" got counted and represented.

Now, I'm pretty sure that you would likely come down on the side of saying we should be counting all persons living in a state and your position is more of a legalistic thought exercise that the Trump administration just may have a point, but I'm saying strictly as a layman that their argument is basically a bunch of bullshit.

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Now, I'm pretty sure that you would likely come down on the side of saying we should be counting all persons living in a state and your position is more of a legalistic thought exercise that the Trump administration just may have a point, but I'm saying strictly as a layman that their argument is basically a bunch of bullshit.

 

Correct.

Given the history of the thing, where they tried to confine it to citizens only, which is wholly without merit, this is dogshit too.

But the question probably deserves an answer, just to put a bullet in the bullshit.

I am also somewhat intrigued by the fact that questions of citizenship, and related immigration issues, are not dealt with at all by the original text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

Also, the argument as currently framed has nothing to do with voting or not voting, citizens or not citizens.  The one thing that differentiates unlawful immigrants from others is that, under existing law, they have no right to be here and can be removed at any time.  I don't know that persons having such a status were within the conception of the founding fathers.  Or that it matters.

Edited November 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Then to end argument on the matter.

But the "Indians not taxed," potentially holds a clue.  Indians are persons, are they not, whether or not taxed?

Indians here in colonial times were generally regarded as subject to a separate sovereign, their own tribe.  If they participated in "white society" and paid taxes, they were regarded as subject to US sovereignty, as most persons would be.

You could quite easily extrapolate that to mean that unlawful aliens are the equivalent of "Indians not taxed."

As stated, I think "persons" probably just means persons, but it's worth settling the question.

It may be a question worth answering but there’s a reason it’s never had to be in the past since the answer is fairly obvious. But right wing nutjobs gotta nutjob. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It may be a question worth answering but there’s a reason it’s never had to be in the past since the answer is fairly obvious. But right wing nutjobs gotta nutjob. 

Well, unlawful immigration is an issue the nation has managed to dodge for about 200 of the last 230 years, to our present detriment.

Now that it's a hot button, along with federal assistance to states, getting a little more precise about how the states are represented is sort of a natural consequence.

Edited November 30, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, unlawful immigration is an issue the nation has managed to dodge for about 200 of the last 230 years, to our present detriment.

Now that it's a hot button, along with federal assistance to states, getting a little more precise about how the states are represented is sort of a natural consequence.

We managed to dodge it because we mostly didn’t make it an issue. For example, all Mexicans until the mid 60s were basically able to come across the border freely and legally. 
 

The whole thing is just another extension of racism supported today by republicans. 

[Dahobbs 18185]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Then to end argument on the matter.

But the "Indians not taxed," potentially holds a clue.  Indians are persons, are they not, whether or not taxed?

Indians here in colonial times were generally regarded as subject to a separate sovereign, their own tribe.  If they participated in "white society" and paid taxes, they were regarded as subject to US sovereignty, as most persons would be.

You could quite easily extrapolate that to mean that unlawful aliens are the equivalent of "Indians not taxed."

As stated, I think "persons" probably just means persons, but it's worth settling the question.

I don't see how you get there. Indians were subject to a separate sovereign, which is why they weren't taxed. Illegal immigrants are very clearly subject to US sovereignty and even pay taxes (and are required to under the law). There is no other sovereign that can claim a right to power over illegal immigrants within our borders.  If anything, I think the best argument is that illegal immigrants would have qualified as "other persons" and been subject to the 3/5ths clause in the original text. 

[High Plains Drifter 11161]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Isn't the problem that if you don't count all people, illegals included, that a ton of money and resources won't get distributed to the states to deal with them (and all the other infrastructure-type issues) and it will just exacerbate the problem?  Or something like that?

 

 

Which is why I'm sure Texas', and Arizona's, and Florida's solicitors general are vigorously arguing against this bullshit.

 

Right?

 

 

[bolverk 30230]

Curiosity about how the Founding Fathers viewed US Citizenship lead me down a small rabbit hole on Wikipedia (yeah, I know) on the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the multiple modifications which followed. It appears that it was granted pretty freely after a period of time of residence and having a "good moral character." 

This gets to the crux of the history in pretty short manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

None of this, however, goes back to the counting of all the people in the US and the question of counting Indians. Here's the history on that: https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/summer/indian-census.html Basically, the "Indians not taxed" clause for the count excluded those who were "living among us," they were counted. The instructions read:

Quote

 

By the phrase "Indians not taxed" is meant Indians living on reservations under the care of Government agents, or roaming individually, or in bands, over unsettled tracts of country.

Indians not in tribal relations, whether full-bloods or half-breeds, who are found mingled with the white population, residing in white families, engaged as servants or laborers, or living in huts or wigwams on the outskirts of towns or settlements are to be regarded as a part of the ordinary population of the country for the constitutional purpose of the apportionment of Representatives among the States, and are to be embraced in the enumeration.

 

1890 is when we started to count all Natives.

So, yeah, that clause shouldn't be one that would be relied upon to not include illegal aliens, because they do indeed live among us and are part of our communities.

Edited November 30, 2020 by bolverk
And the undocumented do pay taxes.

[Js1 86939]

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't see how you get there. Indians were subject to a separate sovereign, which is why they weren't taxed. Illegal immigrants are very clearly subject to US sovereignty and even pay taxes (and are required to under the law). There is no other sovereign that can claim a right to power over illegal immigrants within our borders.  If anything, I think the best argument is that illegal immigrants would have qualified as "other persons" and been subject to the 3/5ths clause in the original text. 

Jesus, don't give them any ideas. 

[Ghost of LL 15664]

Doesn't this case get mooted in about 50 days?  As I understand it, this didn't go through formal rulemaking.  It's just an executive memorandum that will be rescinded sometime on the afternoon of January 20.

[Dahobbs 18185]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Jesus, don't give them any ideas. 

Well, it would take a constitutional amendment to bring that particular bit of history back so I'm not too concerned. I think historically it is the best fit, which is precisely why illegal immigrants are now just persons who must be counted.