Democrat don't care about illegal aliens, they only care about power.

Why would anyone count people illegally residing in any country as citizens? To avail them of services and rights they dont posess? Because they paid taxes? which are compulsory in any other country and dont imply any citizens rights anyway.

There can be only a few reasons why you would not define who is a citizen. And those reasons are of no benefit to the citizens and certainly shouldn't give representation to criminals.

They just want a total count, which is what the constitution requires. Dems don’t like the citizenship question because they think it will scare illegal immigrants away from completing the census form. But, just because you’re not a citizen, it doesn’t mean you’re here illegally. There are plenty of non-citizens living here legally, so their fear is unfounded.

If an illegal resident doesn’t want the government to know about them or where they live, they won’t complete the form anyway - with or without a citizenship question.

Its true.

That’s not why I don’t want it. I don’t want it because it would limit the amount of federal $ coming to CA if the official population numbers were decreased.

It would definitely do that, but I think that is the point. California has been encouraging the migration of illegals into its state by not enforcing immigration laws, and hampering those who try (ICE) by way of sanctuary cities etc. So long as the cost of this exercise is minimized through federal taxation of all the states, this practice will continue. California has also benefited from the shear numbers of these illegal aliens by gaining congressional seats. People from another country are literally affecting our elections by their mere presence...and the Democrat party is the beneficiary of this population boom, not because these people vote, which some would dispute, but because the state get's higher representation than it should.

"People from another country are literally affecting our elections"
But...but...Russia

Russian tried, but Sessions stated emphatically, echoing Obama's on words, that not one vote was changed and no one from America was implicated by deed or accident. If someone is so worried about foreign influence, they should start with the foreigner already here in mass that are demonstrably changing the political landscape of the country...and yes, affecting elections.

And look what happened with Sessions.

Your point is not only moot, it's absurd.

That's not really a rebuttal.

Neither are you.

They're not?

You're always harping on about the russian interference. What would you have us do? Go to war over a social media campaign that didn't actually change the outcome of the election(which has been confirmed by our intel agencies)? You germans gonna throw rocks at the russians to help us? We both know you and the majority of the rest of NATO would be completely worthless in that conflict, so why exactly are you hoping to push us into it? Just to see americans die in a war while you watch and laugh?

"You germans gonna throw rocks at the russians to help us"

Hey thats what a few people did during the world cup!

"We both know you and the majority of the rest of NATO would be completely worthless in that conflict,"

In a War with Russia the biggest losers would be Europe, specifically Ukraine, Belarus, Poland and the Baltic stated. We would bare the brunt of such a war and would have to hold the line probably somewhere along Warsaw, while we do nothing and Wait for American reinforcment, bc modern European military strategy is wait for the Americans. That is the military reality of a War with Russia. Something no one, even the russians, dont want.

Then what on earth do you want the US to do about the interference? They're already under heavy sanctions, there isn't much more to do other than the military option. You say you don't want that, so then.. what? Stamp our feet and tell them to behave? And modern European military strategy is cowardice, plain and simple. Let someone else do your fighting for you because they were foolish enough to stay in a treaty long after you showed you had no intention of pulling your own weight. It's disgusting.

"Then what on earth do you want the US to do about the interference?"

Even more sanctions. help Ukraine more. Kick them out of Syria. Any number of things

"hey're already under heavy sanctions"

There is no such thing called as enough sanctions. Sanction them till they can't even import air!

"And modern European military strategy is cowardice, plain and simple"

Yes. Thats what I said, didn't I? Its disgusting how much we rely on America. It might be possible that America is holding Europe back. If I ever decide to go into Politics I'll definitely run on an Anti-American campaign. Everyone loves a big bad guy. No offence to America. Think of it like a Brexit. But instead of Britain leaving the Eu to regain its "Independence". Its the EU leaving America to regain our "Independence"

"Let someone else do your fighting for you because they were foolish enough to stay in a treaty long after you showed you had no intention of pulling your own weight."

Absolutley. Although our New Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, or AKK for short, promised to increase Military spending to the NATO minimum during her time in office.

And I agree. We need to become independent from American Military might. I suggest kicking you out of NATO and Europe forming its own Unified Military forces. Europe does after all have a bigger Combined GDP than America

Do it. It'll be great to not have to worry about getting drawn into a war to defend people who think they're superior to us, and it'll be hilarious to watch you fail, too.

Absolutely.

"It'll be great to not have to worry about getting drawn into a war to defend "

You'll of course still have obligations to individual countries, but with You out of NATO, it can become more Euro-Centric. Mybe even a Proto EU Military. I am sure you'll enjoy the Isolation. Worked out fine last time

Worked better for us than it did for you ;)

"Worked better for us than it did for you ;)"

Eh, fair enough

I’m not arguing with you except to say that if the immigrants are already here, using resources, I would prefer to be paid for that. XD

Let's not get into how the numbers are being represented. We gotta stick it to those liberal elitists cities!

So you're fine with them ignoring the law because it gets your state more money it shouldn't have?

I’m ok with who ignoring what law?

And here we have an example of the problem at hand. You don't deserve that money.

Suck it, buttercup.

Eh, if worst comes to worst I’ll just move to your state and vote in some democrat politicians.

Like the locusts y'all are. Rarely, does a democrat tell the truth, but like a broken clock...

Ass

Constitution says to count everybody. Why do you hate America?

I love America, that is why I say count those who are here legally. If you shouldn't be here, you shouldn't be counted.

That's not what the Constitution says. Love it or leave it.

That is your interpretation. Mine is, if you are here illegally, you shouldn't be counted. There is no way the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to count illegal aliens.

In fact, in Federalist #42, Madison elaborates that the federalized power over naturalization solved “a very serious embarrassment” and “defect” of the Articles of Confederation whereby “certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” can force themselves on several states had they “acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State.”

We should count illegals, in order to know how many are here, hence the citizen question. However, illegals SHOULD NOT be included when redistricting for Congressional Representatives. There IS a difference.

If you have a problem with poor wording of 18th century Constitutional clauses, the Second Amendment is significantly more contentious.

In the meantime, judge ruled to count everybody. Constitution. We love America.

Actually, no. The judge ruled that the WH didn't have a good explanation for why they wanted the census question, not that it couldn't be asked.

In fact, till 1960 it was always asked, and then until 2010, it was asked on the long-form.

Whether illegal aliens should be counted or not, has never been adjudicated.

Have we not been through this already? The long-form is not a census. It's a survey. "Census" means a 100% sample rate by definition.

Whatever, the question was still asked continually until 1960, so asking it again is not new or illegal.

As far as the Second Amendment, no, I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward.

So is "well regulated militia"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
A Militia in the 18th century meant all the people, not in the organized military.

Secondly, it's called an "explanatory verse" and was commonly used in the 18th writing. It explains why all of the people need to be armed.

The main part is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "The People" means ALL people as used everywhere in the constitution.

Yes, you should. They give a lot of insight into what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the Consitution.

He won't. Melody's reading the first paragraph of the Federalist Papers will hit him like Kryptonite, rendering him more useless than he already is.

"Federalist"

You need to read more than just the Federalist Papers. Clearly.

Actually, the topic as covered in the U.S. Constitution:
"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."

This unfortunately means that, at the time it was written, the vote of a person who was an indentured servant or a slave was counted as only a partial vote in the final tally. While most of our Constitutional Rights have remained constant, this is an area that was inevitable to change when slavery and indentured servitude were, thankfully, done away with.

We thus know the interpretation of this clause has changed over time, codified and/or interpreted accordingly to social changes and attitudes of the generations during which it was addressed. Therefore, it is not beyond the scope of logic to expect modern elected representatives to propose and implement strict restrictions OR the total lifting of restrictions when it comes to definitions of citizenship (or legally accepted member/Number within the Union). And likewise, any such modern interpretations could just as well be altered within the lifetimes of our successors in reflection of their generation's change of interpretation.

What's the Constitution say, there, smaht guy?!?!?!

"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." Close, but not quite.

So convince a judge that persons means legal citizens in this context. Don't come to me with it.

You assumed something I didn't say. You got close, as "Indians not taxed" do not count.

Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional
It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).

The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy or speech.) "…[I]t is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual's privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant. A census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is no basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year 2000."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 F.3d 45. The U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of certiorari on February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published opinions were filed with these rulings.

These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html

By the way, it's not about not counting everyone, it's about counting all, while determining who are citizens, and who are not.

Way to be, sophist.