Illegals don't have to actually vote. Dem(on)s get power simply by way of illegal residence.

Most Americans do not know that the US census currently counts, for purposes of voting power, all people in a district, regardless of citizenship!

Senate Democrats just voted unanimously to defeat an amendment that would have stopped counting illegals for congressional seat… https://t.co/5gXt4Z1wzP

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 9, 2024

Traitors.

Why do we even bother trying to stay united with a clearly anti-American ideology.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Traitors.

---

Democrats have demonstrated time and time again that it is power and control and not country that is their end game.

And they will obtain that power by hook or by crook.

Burn it all the **** DOWN!!

This is good for Texas … we have a lot of such folks. I like this vote so we get our fair share of federal money, etc.

Haven't they always counted?

democrats are satan's minions. What do you expect.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Haven't they always counted?

---

What does that have to do with voting today to prevent counting them?

At one point in time, black people had always been slaves.

mjschiller said:

---

democrats are satan's minions. What do you expect.

---

That's insulting to satan's minions. They only aspire to be as evil as democrats.

This also means that bussing illegals to blue states only gives them more power.

Correct. But … I've always thought that Houston metro is undercounted … by maybe as much as 1,000,000 people. It hurts us badly with federal money and even representation in Congress if those folks aren't counted. Since most Texas Congressmen are GOP I say the more the merrier. Thats just the way I've always looked at it.

Tea Party said:

---

Why do we even bother trying to stay united with a clearly anti-American ideology.

---

Who's trying to stay united? F democrats.

So Dems have complained for years that low populous states get the minimum 3 EC votes (Wyoming, etc) giving the voters in those states more voting power. So now, they are overloading on that premise to give more voting power to states with the most illegals.

We are being attacked internally.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Haven't they always counted?

---

Yes. It is required by the Constitution. To change that, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution. The GOP just attempted to attach this proposal to a spending bill, rather than pursuing a CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment. It is pure grandstanding.

In any case, there are slightly more Blue than Red states among the top states by illegal population, so the proposal would hurt the Dems nationwide, but it would hurt Texas more than any state except California, as we have the second-highest number of illegal immigrants.

Unanimously

As it turns out the.strict constructionists in these parts would like to let the constitution breathe a little after all when convenient.

They should only count as 3/5ths a person

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Haven't they always counted?

---

Yes, but there's way more illegals now which means marxist districts that they currently inhabit will gain more marxist representatives.

Antoninus said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Haven't they always counted?

---

Yes. It is required by the Constitution. To change that, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution. The GOP just attempted to attach this proposal to a spending bill, rather than pursuing a CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment. It is pure grandstanding.

In any case, there are slightly more Blue than Red states among the top states by illegal population, so the proposal would hurt the Dems nationwide, but it would hurt Texas more than any state except California, as we have the second-highest number of illegal immigrants.

---

Like Ukraine and Israel funding in a border bill? Like Green New Deal pork in an Inflation Reduction
Act? That kind of grandstanding? All of it is a sham, but pretty sure one side is a master of it and they have the complicit media to march out the talking points.

How do you count people who are undocumented?

You don't. You OVER count them. The same liberals counting votes in elections are counting illegals for representation.

Antoninus said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Haven't they always counted?

---

Yes. It is required by the Constitution.

---

so much for republicans being the pro-constitution party

What would you or your party know about The Constitution? The last 3 years says you don't know Jack **** about it.

Time to start admitting that the U.S. is a lipstick on a pig, third-world country.

"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). "
Census.gov

The rub:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." -14th amendment

One can argue the illegals shouldn't be here in the first place - they are ghosts. They don't have SSNs and so are not taxed in the same way was residents and citizens. This would have to be challenged and probably go before the USSC.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Haven't they always counted?

---

Yes, but there's way more illegals now which means marxist districts that they currently inhabit will gain more marxist representatives.

---

OR more GOP influence.

It works both ways, amigo.

There are plenty of illegals in my Blood Red county. Counting them gives us a greater voice than a Blue voter in the adjacent county with fewer illegals.

Old McDonald said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Haven't they always counted?

---

Yes. It is required by the Constitution.

---

so much for republicans being the pro-constitution party

---

Like you liberals, I don't care about the constitution anymore. I care about destroying the left by any means necessary.

More precisely, it is the current interpretation of the language and intent of the constitution but it has not been throughly tested yet. It has been somewhat refined and established but there is yet room for review, in the thoughts of at least some legal types.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." -14th amendment

One can argue the illegals shouldn't be here in the first place - they are ghosts. They don't have SSNs and so are not taxed in the same way was residents and citizens. This would have to be challenged and probably go before the USSC.

---

The old reliable " illegal immigrants are not 'persons.'. As anyone can clearly see. They are either Indians or slaves or… something. But clearly nor 'persons.'"

Next up: " person does not mean person. It means citizen."

Logos Stick said:

---

I care about destroying the left by any means necessary.

---

I will be damned. One of them finally said it out loud.

The sentiment has been obvious for at least a decade, but it's refreshing to actually see someone honest enough to admit it

Can we just allocate some reps to Mexico and let the people stay there.

Antoninus said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." -14th amendment

One can argue the illegals shouldn't be here in the first place - they are ghosts. They don't have SSNs and so are not taxed in the same way was residents and citizens. This would have to be challenged and probably go before the USSC.

---

The old reliable " illegal immigrants are not 'persons.'. As anyone can clearly see. They are either Indians or slaves or… something. But clearly nor 'persons.'"

Next up: " person does not mean person. It means citizen."

---

The fact that they explicitly excluded Indians not taxed means that illegals should not be counted since they cannot legally work here and pay taxes.

You're wrong, per usual. HTH

I guess we can repeal of Section 2 of 14th Amendment and go back to the 3/5 ths Compromise of 1787.