chlavinka said:

---

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.

---

You really dont think long term do you. Cali was once a solid Red State until the 1980's. It depends on what kind of immigration we get. Conservative Believing Hispanics or criminals ejected from jails across the 3rd world. Biden is letting them all in.

And we will soon pay the price. No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

"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.

---

I read this as the founders making the assumption that everyone counted in the census would be legal citizens.

Antoninus said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

ying 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

---

Glad to help. You guys don't give two ****s about the laws or the constitution and haven't for decades.

We've been playing the game using the rules for took long. Im beyond that. You and you fellow lefties must be defeated and your perverse ideology destroyed.

"Indians not taxed" referred to Indians, that were living on tribal lands.

Illegal immigrants do not fall into that category. Personally, I do not think they should be counted. But I don't see how you were going to make an argument are "Indians not taxed". That's simply ignores the meaning of the words and history.

I do think there may be an argument that because "illegal immigrant" wasn't even a thing that was a concept to them at the time, one cannot argue that the drafters would want to include what we call illegal immigrants today in the count.

Imagine if we had the same common sense immigration rules literally everybody else has:

-You only get citizenship if you are born to a US citizen or legally naturalize

-only citizens can vote, hold office or be counted in our census

-If you enter our country illegally you are fined, imprisoned and deported immediately

The idea that a US political party is OPPOSED to these simple ideas shows they are traitors who don't represent America or her interests

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

You mean when the whole of the US population was 31 million people and we were gearing up to resource the Industrial Revolution? And they were invited here under the rules of that time period?

Once again - legal (controlled) immigration = great. Illegal (uncontrolled) immigration = despicable.

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

Yes, from lands with similar core belief and basic cultural commonalities, ie the Western world

Try again. Dig a little deeper. Park the silly idealism and understand historical reality.

This flat silly idealistic post speaks volumes about your lack of understanding regarding the true nature of the human condition.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Personally, I do not think they should be counted.

---

Ideologically, I agree. It is horrible policy. But I'm a strict constructionist. The words say what they say. If I want to change them, I must amend them.

Quote:

---

I do think there may be an argument that because "illegal immigrant" wasn't even a thing that was a concept to them at the time, one cannot argue that the drafters would want to include what we call illegal immigrants today in the count.

---

That is an Originalist argument that completely ignores the unambiguous language of the document. As such, it is as calling for an "activist judiciary" as loudly as anything the Left has ever done.

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.

---

Yes but how much do they count. If they are "free persons" under the Constitution, illegal aliens count fully. If not, they only count 3/5s.No amendment necessary, but a court interpretation of that clause would be.

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

Fact check False.

The mean was about 500k per year, far less than what is happening now.

ttu_85 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

Yes, from lands with similar core belief and basic cultural commonalities, ie the Western world

---

That may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said.

of course, it also is not true. Much of the immigration in that period was from Catholic countries, which annoyed the hell out of the pre-existing protestant population. Likewise, much of it was from the Mediterranean, which the pre-existing northern Europeans disliked.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

You mean when the whole of the US population was 31 million people and we were gearing up to resource the Industrial Revolution? And they were invited here under the rules of that time period?

Once again - legal (controlled) immigration = great. Illegal (uncontrolled) immigration = despicable.

---

That gets lost on the "citizen of the world" types(liberals).

Logos Stick said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

Fact check False.

The mean was about 500k per year, far less than what is happening now.

---

those are the raw numbers, amigo.

The "rate" of immigration (as a percentage of the total population) was greater in each of those decades than currently.

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."

---

As usual, you miss the key words that determine whether a person should be counted or not. It doesn't say, they're not a person, it clearly says they're not taxed. Illegals are not taxed and should not be counted. They do not file and that's the determining factor.

Where, in your idiotic diatribe, did anyone say they're not a person. They're a person, just not one that should be counted in our censuses, per the constitution.

Antoninus said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

Fact check False.

The mean was about 500k per year, far less than what is happening now.

---

those are the raw numbers, amigo.

The "rate" of immigration (as a percentage of the total population) was greater in each of those decades than currently.

---

For ****'s sake, it doesn't freakin matter. There is still a TON of people pouring across our border now and it's egged on by the crappy policies of the Biden administration.

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

Yes, from lands with similar core belief and basic cultural commonalities, ie the Western world

---

That may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said.

of course, it also is not true. Much of the immigration in that period was from Catholic countries, which annoyed the hell out of the pre-existing protestant population. Likewise, much of it was from the Mediterranean, which the pre-existing northern Europeans disliked.

---

Bawahaah oh yeah Southern and Easter European with their Christian Catholic faith == Migrants from communist China, Islamist from across the ME, and males of military age flushed from prisons. Sure!!! thats the same thing.

Again you are showing ignorance and pimping silly idealism. For example Study a little Islamic history ? Hint: THEY HAVE NEVER PLAYED WELL WITH OTHERS. Or look at the surge of crime in Fla in the early 1980's with the Cuban boat people.

I Know your next argument will be along the lines of Haitians and Venezuela criminals are not Islamist. Just tell me this yes or no and explain way. Are you OK with what the Biden Admin is doing and why ? Be honest.

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."

---

So you believe in absolutely zero gun control, right?

2nd Amendment is very clear.

ttu_85 said:

---

Are you OK with what the Biden Admin is doing and why ? Be honest.

---

Are they following the Constitution, by providing due process to persons claiming asylum?" Yes, they are.

Ideologically, do I "like it?". No, I think it is bad policy.

Legally, does my personal "like or dislike" or my ideological preference mean a damned thing when evaluating what is required of our government by the constitution? No

Antoninus said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

No country can absorb such a huge influx this fast.

---

From 1860 to 1910, rates of immigration were higher in every decade than they are currently.

---

Fact check False.

The mean was about 500k per year, far less than what is happening now.

---

those are the raw numbers, amigo.

The "rate" of immigration (as a percentage of the total population) was greater in each of those decades than currently.

---

That's not rate. Unit of time is the denominator. Illegals per year.

Also, it was literally 1/10th of a percent greater at that time. And those were LEGAL immigrants.

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Are you OK with what the Biden Admin is doing and why ? Be honest.

---

Are they following the Constitution, by providing due process to persons claiming asylum?" Yes, they are.

Ideologically, do I "like it?". No, I think it is bad policy.

Legally, does my personal "like or dislike" or my ideological preference mean a damned thing when evaluating what is required of our government by the constitution? No

---

Why do you constantly lie? If Biden is following the Constitution, why did he sue the State of Texas to remove razor wire? That is doing the complete opposite.

Article IV, promises that the federal government "shall protect each [State] against invasion," and Article I, 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges "the States' sovereign interest in protecting their borders."

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

So you believe in absolutely zero gun control, right? 2nd Amendment is very clear.

---

yes, I believe that the Second Amendment is an absolute bar to the federal government interfering with individual ownership or possession of "arms."

I believe the "militua clause" to be descriptive, in the sense that it helps us understand what is meant by the word "arms." In particular, I interpret it to mean that "arms" is a reference to the sort of weaponry that would have been owned and provided by the individual member of the militia. In 1789, that would've been a musket. Today, that would be a fully automatic rifle. no, I do not think it extends to rocket launchers or tanks, or battleships, because the individual militia did not provide those things. Instead, those were provided by the sponsoring organization (a local government).

I also believe that the 10th amendment comes to play. Thus, none of the above limitations on the federal government apply to state governments. I think that the "incorporation doctrine" is utter Constitutional nonsense, in every context… Not just the second amendment. It is completely contrary to the concept of federalism.

in other words, the federal government absolutely CANNOT say "Citizen, you are not allowed to own an AK-47." On the other hand, a state or locality absolutely COULD say that. Federalism.

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Are you OK with what the Biden Admin is doing and why ? Be honest.

---

Are they following the Constitution, by providing due process to persons claiming asylum?" Yes, they are.

Ideologically, do I "like it?". No, I think it is bad policy.

Legally, does my personal "like or dislike" or my ideological preference mean a damned thing when evaluating what is required of our government by the constitution? No

---

They aren't even properly enforcing the rules of asylum. To be let into this country with an asylum claim, people are supposed to go to an actual point of entry and ask for it there. Thousands are illegaly crossing over at non-points of entry and then asking for asylum. Of course, liberals have already completely ignored the rule that people are supposed to ask for asylum at the first country they come to so it's not surprising that they ignore the point of entry rule.

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Are you OK with what the Biden Admin is doing and why ? Be honest.

---

Are they following the Constitution, by providing due process to persons claiming asylum?" Yes, they are.

Ideologically, do I "like it?". No, I think it is bad policy.

Legally, does my personal "like or dislike" or my ideological preference mean a damned thing when evaluating what is required of our government by the constitution? No

---

Why do you constantly lie? If Biden is following the Constitution, why did he sue the State of Texas to remove razor wire? That is doing the complete opposite.

Article IV, promises that the federal government "shall protect each [State] against invasion," and Article I, 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges "the States' sovereign interest in protecting their borders."

---

First, you need to grow up and think about the difference between a difference in opinion and a "lie."

It is your "opinion" that the problems current problems at the border constitute an "invasion." I disagree. That is not a lie. That is a difference of opinion.

if your opinion is correct, clause 3 could arguably play a role. If my opinion is correct, it does not apply …not remotely.

in any case, I don't think you understand that clause very well. It does not say that the states can defy federal authority. It says that, if the feds are not present, the states can act in the interim.

if 10,000 pirates (or 10,000 fruit pickers) cross an international border into a state, and the feds are not present, the states can act. If, however, the feds are present and the states just don't like the way the feds are acting, this clause does not apply. in other words, it allows the states to act in a vacuum, but not to act contrary to the exercise of federal authority

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

Both ways? You're saying it's expanding red counties by the same amount it's expanding blue counties?

This helps Texas more than any other state and it doesn't matter where they live since we gerrymander the crap out of the maps anyways, don't understand the butthurt here.

It's all about percentage of illegals as compared to the whole

California has more illegals than Texas and both would lose population if illegals were excluded from the census. Currently a congressional district is 700,000 people

The states that have a higher percentage of illegals will lose a larger percentage of their congressional
Delegation.

Likely the rust belt is the winner if this happened Wisconsin through to Pennsylvania have lots of people but I would guess a lower percentage of Illegals

Ag CPA said:

---

This helps Texas more than any other state and it doesn't matter where they live since we gerrymander the crap out of the maps anyways, don't understand the butthurt here.

---

I hate to be the "actually" guy on this, but California is a larger beneficiary than Texas.

2.2mm vs our 1.8mm. (some estimates put them as high as 3.0mm and us as high as 2.0mm)

No other state has even 1mm

if illegals were not counted for redistricting purposes, Texas would probably lose two members in the House. California would probably lose three.

among the top 10 states for illegal illegal immigrant population, you have two or maybe three clear red states five and maybe six clear blue states, plus a few purples. All of them would obviously lose representation. It's interesting to speculate where those seats would go

They should be incl in the count but excluded in determining the number of Congressional seats in a state. Dems are always up to no good. They are crooks. But the electorate gives most of them another term...and another...and another...and...

Post title is misleading. They aren't voting to make a change to longstanding, traditional representation, but to maintain it the way it's always been since 1850. You do realize that with most migrants entering the country in red states that the biggest gain in representation would be those same states. And even though those migrants add to the state's population and thus number of representatives they are not eligible to vote.

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

---

That amendment was originally about slavery....another institution beloved by your democrats.

Had nothing to do with illegal aliens.

Now that illegal immigration is a serious issue that threatens the country, it should be taken into account.

I love how ur ilk love the constitution only when it provides cover for slimey and unethical practices.

AggiePops said:

---

Post title is misleading. They aren't voting to make a change to longstanding, traditional representation, but to maintain it the way it's always been since 1850. You do realize that with most migrants entering the country in red states that the biggest gain in representation would be those same states. And even though those migrants add to the state's population and thus number of representatives they are not eligible to vote.in federal elections although some have. And several municipalities have legalized their vote in citywide elections which makes it more difficult to keep then from voting in state and federal electionss

---

I added the part you left out.

Hope this helps.

So are all criminals counted for the electoral college, or just those who have violated immigration laws?

doubledog said:

---

So are all criminals counted for the electoral college, or just those who have violated immigration laws?

---

valid point. Even in states that do not allow ex-cons and felons to vote, they are certainly counted for purposes of the census.

Democrats don't care about you or America. It's all about staying in power