OT So many?

[trader_4]

Then why did you tell us "that's the law"?

Read the SC decision and you'll

Yes, it tells me that maybe they aren't making the right argument, which wouldn't be the first time. Here's a obvious good reason. Illegal immigration is a serious national problem and it's about time we tried to find out how many are here illegally. How can we discuss giving them legal status or deporting them, when we don't know it there are 5 mil, 11 mil or 33 mil here? Isn't that at least as important as knowing what your ancestry is, what language you speak at home or how many toilets you have? Think Micky, think! Stop drinking that Democrat KoolAid crap.

Sure, keep speculating. But you always know and are sure that Trump is always wrong, the GOP is always wrong, about everything. Funny thing that.

Obviously you haven't heard it because you can't tell us the "good reasons" for any of that. Again, you're clueless and lost.

Certainly not to the extent that you DEMOCRATS are now challenging the citizenship question. You all have become nothing but a sad bunch of knee-jerk Democrats. Anything Trump does, is bad, evil. Anything a Democrat does is great and wonderful. In all the years you've been here bitching, it's never once been about ANYTHING a Democrat does. And you Democrats are so stupid that you don't realize that you're helping Trump in his re-election effort. You're going to pick an even worse, extreme left loony tune to run against him.

The ones who challenged this

Why is it "nefarious" to ask people if they are a US citizen?

When is MD going to become a sanctuary state? How many illegal aliens would you like sent there?

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 7/9/2019 7:16 AM, trader_4 wrote: .

I'm surprised that the question has not been there forever, for the reasons you cite. I'm more interested in citizenship than toilets. It affects how our government does things.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Agreed. If it causes illegals to be undercounted, so be it.

Still, the government has procedures for a reason, and the Trump administration is notorious for bypassing proper procedures.

*sigh* I'll have to dive into this one and see what the Supremes really said about it.

Cindy Hamilton

[trader_4]

In fact it was part of censuses for decades, up until the 50s. IDK why they took it out. And it leads one to wonder WTF has been going on. The main purpose to the census, the only constitutional purpose, is to determine how House seats are apportioned. It would seem that only citizens should be counted, but the Constitution only refers to a count of free persons. That sure looks like an oversight, but that's what it says, so I assume they count em all up, illegal aliens and all. So illegal aliens count to give sanctuary states and cities more seats. Someone should take that case to the Supreme Court, ie that illegal aliens should not be included. Does anyone think the framers ever intended that?

[trader_4]

I think the SC is on the path of whether there was a corrupt motive, self-dealing, aspect involved. Let's say you are on a condo board and you decide to put a new rule into place that restricts pets and the condo documents give you that authority. A resident objects, goes running to court. Normally the court isn't going to get involved in whether it's a good rule or a bad rule, whether a limit on pet size should be ten pounds or thirty. But if two of the board members drove the change just to screw resident Richard Smith, who they have a personal feud with, then the court could decide the decision was made in bad faith and strike it. Team Trump just bumbles around and apparently they can't keep a story straight. Had they simply said we have a serious illegal alien problem, no one knows how many are here, we want to find out, they probably would have been on solid ground.

[Biff Tannen]

If illegals don't have to obey the law and leave the US, why should a citizen have to obey the laws?

Do illegals have more rights than citizens?

[Rod Speed]

But it’s a tad unlikely that anyone but the most stupid illegal would admit to being an illegal on a census form.

Having that question on the census form isnt going to tell you that.

Problem is that its much less likely to get an honest answer to that, stupid.

Clearly not something you are actually capable of doing.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Really? I hope this is a rhetorical question. Otherwise your mother did a poor job raising you.

No. They do have some of the same fundamental rights, though. Even home-grown criminals have some rights.

Cindy Hamilton

[Scott Lurndal]

It was taken out because it was causing the census to undercount. The census isn't a count of citizens, it's a count of all residents of the country _as per the constitution_. The question was preventing residents from participating in the census, thus undercounting and subsequently reducing their representation in the federal government. That's the science; the numbers. Not politics.

That's why the republican operatives intent on circumventing democracy have advocated for the question being returned, and why they attack voting laws and try everything possible to reduce the ability to vote for poor people and legal immigrants.

[gfretwell]

Since most of these people are already carrying fraudulent papers, what would keep them from perjuring themselves on a census form? It is a meaningless question. I really wonder how valid these things are anyway. How many people give an accurate annual income?

[trader_4]

Yes, I don't disagree. But while the Democrats claim that Trump is trying to discourage illegals from being counted, they apparently think illegals should be counted in determining House seats, which you'd think people could agree isn't right or fair. It does explain the open border Democrats though, doesn't it? Stuff more illegals into CA, get more House seats.

[trader_4]

In today's America, sadly yes. If you or I as a citizen refuse to pay tickets, refuse to appear in court, the judge issues a warrant and the cops show up to arrest you at your house. When ICE does that with a deportation order, where the illegal aliens have broken the law, refused to show up, the new Democrats say it's wrong, leave them be.

[trader_4]

If you're an American, a patriot, then you would be in favor of a constitutional ammendment to fix that obvious error. IT's absurd to think that the framers ever intended representation in Congress to be based on counts that include illegal aliens.

The question was preventing residents from

Oh no, that sure is politics. And it explains one reason why you Democrats want open borders, to flood the country with illegal aliens so you get more seats in Congress. Power at any price.

That's a lie. All Americans should not want illegal aliens to be counted to determine House seats. All Americans should not want illegal aliens to vote. And no Americans should have an issue with presenting an easy to obtain ID to vote. You need it to drive, to get on a plane, to get a job, but vote? Well according to you libs, that's discriminatory.

[Scott Lurndal]

Leaving the soi disant "patriotism"[*] flag aside, the census has served it's purpose just fine in the last fifty years (and the hundred before the question was added) without the question.

Given the obviously political goals, which are not aligned with the majority of americans (who _aren't republicans), I don't see any need for a politically divisive constitutional convention for such a small, piddly issue.

No, not to anyone familiar with 18th century American history.

[*] _YOU_ don't get to define the term.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Sorry. Fourteenth Amendment:

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.

Persons. Not citizens. It mentions citizens explicitly in the next sentence where it talks about voting rights.

Cindy Hamilton

[devnull]

Welfare sponges should not be allowed to vote.  They don't contribute anything useful to this country.

Only federal income taxpayers should be allowed to vote.

[micky]

What a stupid question. If I tell you the law is that you may not murder someone, but then I can't cite the law that says that, do you think that means you may murder people?

ROTFLOL

That's not a good reason. The law states what reasons are allowed and that's not one of them.

You stop beilng a conservative anti-immigrant hack and realize you don't know more than stumpie's lawyers anymore than he knows more than the generals.

That's what you were doing when you speculated above what a valid reason would be. In the case two lines up, it doesn't matter if it's the same law or a section of a different law. I don't know which and in my third reply below, which you have not bothered to reply to, I point out that it's your responsibility to cite for us the law which says they don't need a good reason.

So what is it? Cite for us the law which says they don't need a good reason.

We're not talkign about always. We're talkign about this case and they are wrong here. They lost in court. They hired new lawyers, probably because the old lawyers said there was no more they could do, and I heard today they've come up with a new reason but ddidn't say what it was. I'll bet it's not your specualtatoin above.

I don't memorize this stuff. The last time I heard it discused was at least 10 years ago.

You know, I didn't insult you until you started and continued insulting me, and almost always for an invalid reason. I know this is common in Usenet but it's one of the reasons I've lost respect for you.

Same oold stupid complaints by you.

Because their goal is not to geg a good count of the number of people living here (not citizens, people is what the law says).

It's been discussed and known for years.

Non-responsive.

When are you going to reply to my 3rd reply?

[micky]

One of Trader's favorite lies.

No answer from them for this one. I guess they sometimes run out of steam when confronted with facts.

[Rod Speed]

They do provide a market for what is still produced in the USA.

Bit rough given that its now 44% who don’t.

[invalid unparseable]

Apparently the question was always there but Obama administration removed it. The courts should have no say in this.