Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on July 02, 2019, 06:19:42 PM
-
Well, the census is going to press sans a citizenship question. I would protest by not filling mine out, but that would only help the people who want to pack the population counts of their liberal districts with illegals. Now that I live in a free state, I wonder if I should fill it out with household=97 to help get ID another seat in congress?
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/07/02/huge-if-true-doj-email-confirms-the-2020-census-form-will-be-printed-without-the-citizenship-question/
-
It would seem to me to be unconstitutional to NOT have the citizenship question as the census is supposed to count citizens. Plus, why would having that question on the census be a threat to an illegal alien? They either would not answer the census or would lie and say yes.
-
It would seem to me to be unconstitutional to NOT have the citizenship question as the census is supposed to count citizens. Plus, why would having that question on the census be a threat to an illegal alien? They either would not answer the census or would lie and say yes.
If an illegal alien lied, he's be illegally breaking the law, and as we've been told innumerable times, illegal aliens don't do illegal things.
-
Roberts let us down again...
-
Roberts let us down again...
I read yesterday that this may not be a done deal yet. Apparently Trump is looking at an EO. Not sure how kosher that is, but it will be interesting to watch.
-
I read yesterday that this may not be a done deal yet. Apparently Trump is looking at an EO. Not sure how kosher that is, but it will be interesting to watch.
From what I'm reading he is going to do it but that in of itself won't override the ruling but would give more ammo so to speak in a court case.
-
Use the 14th Amendment.
Section 2. 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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
-
I read yesterday that this may not be a done deal yet. Apparently Trump is looking at an EO. Not sure how kosher that is, but it will be interesting to watch.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trump-says-he-is-thinking-of-executive-order-to-revive-census-citizenship-question/2019/07/05/d3ec5986-9f20-11e9-9ed4-c9089972ad5a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f0e6e50155d
So far, he seems to be thinking about it.
-
Pelosi appears to have stepped in it:
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/07/08/this-is-disgraceful-nancy-pelosi-unleashes-her-inner-racist-with-this-take-on-the-us-census-citizenship-question/
I also recently saw a poll (from a non-conservative pollster) that had something like 57% of people in favor of a citizenship question with only like 20% opposed.
-
BREAKING: Attorney General Bill Barr Says He Found a “Pathway” to Put Citizenship Question Back in the Census
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/breaking-attorney-general-bill-barr-says-he-found-a-pathway-to-put-citizenship-question-back-in-the-census/
-
I'm just going to sign it and turn it back in.
-
I'm just going to sign it and turn it back in.
The problem with that is that it can be good or bad depending on where you live. If you live in a region/state with a lot of illegals that will fill out the form without the citizenship question, then by not participating in the census, you are "cancelling out" their vote so to speak. If you live in a region/state that has few illegal aliens, you want to fill it out so that you contribute to potentially adding more representation in Congress, or protecting your current representation.
I believe there are several states that are on the cusp of getting an extra congresscritter taken from another state. IIRC, the new congresscritter will likely end up dem in most of them, partially bolstered by non-citizen participation in the census if there is no citizenship question.
I believe the largest potential seat gains will be in Florida and Texas. Lots of conservatives move to those states, but then so do many liberals, and they both have likely high illegal populations.
-
IMO, you should participate in the census. However, IMO, you can do that without answering 200 questions.
-
IMO, you should participate in the census. However, IMO, you can do that without answering 200 questions.
Last time around I honestly reported the number of people in my household. I figure that's sufficient.
-
Another Obama appointee
A Federal Judge Put Up Another Roadblock Against Trump's Citizenship Question For 2020 Census
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/07/09/federal-judge-to-trump-doj-you-cant-change-legal-teams-for-the-2020-census-case-n2549805
-
Last time around I honestly reported the number of people in my household. I figure that's sufficient.
Last time, I actually had a guy who came by the house asking more questions. I think as soon as I opened the door, he could answser half of them. He was apologetic and just asked a handful of questions. Apparently, he was supposed to select a certain number of people and ask follow up questions every few months for a year (do you still live at the same address, do you still work for the same company, etc - nothing real personal). I gave him my cell number and he never came back, just called me a couple times at intervals. I didn't care for it, but I figured the guy handled it about as well as he could have.
-
My father was a census taker one year. Wish I could remember the tales he had from that experience. Just know this, in the end, it's a joke. May as well just guess.
-
So we count the population but aren’t interested in how many are actually citizens?
How is that even called a US census?
Every day we wake up and are expected to believe, hold and promote two opposite ideas simultaneously on multiple topics.
It’s easier to manipulate people who cannot think straight.
-
Lefty- we must register and track all firearms sales to prevent crime, and no these records won't be used for confiscation purposes.
Also lefty- we must not keep any paperwork on illegal aliens, because it will be used to deport them.
-
Stealing yer quote!
-
My father was a census taker one year. Wish I could remember the tales he had from that experience. Just know this, in the end, it's a joke. May as well just guess.
I did the 2000 census. I won't say it was a"joke" but it definatly had screwed up aspects. One street had MISSING STREET NUMBERS, and what it did have had no rational order.
Another street lacked the address listed on the form; neighbors had no clue who the person named was, and outright said there was no address like that, ever.
We had a certain no. of long forms. It's surprising what people will tell you. Waaaaaaaay more than I would. Others won't talk to you at all for the short form. But their neighbor will ......
....... Play nice with those around you .....
Oh. Beware of the dogs, too. =D
-
I did the census one year too...
https://archive.org/details/TheThreeStooges050NoCensusNoFeeling1940CurlyLarryMoeDaBaron16m37s
-
Dad was doing this in Baton Rough, LA.
-
So we count the population but aren’t interested in how many are actually citizens?
How is that even called a US census?
Every day we wake up and are expected to believe, hold and promote two opposite ideas simultaneously on multiple topics.
It’s easier to manipulate people who cannot think straight.
Because the Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution makes no reference to the people being counted being citizens. Only free people.
As reported, the results of the Census also didn't reference which individuals counted were citizens vs. non-citizens.
As far as I can tell it wasn't until the 1820 census that a count was made of "foreigners not naturalized."
-
Can it be called ironic that the same people who screamed the loudest, and still are, about interference in the 2016 election are the very same people making interference in our elections as easy as possible?
-
Can it be called ironic that the same people who screamed, and still are, about interference in the 2016 election are the very same people making interference in our elections as easy as possible?
Irony? No.
Want to know what a politician is doing? All you have to do is listen to what they are accusing their opposition of.
-
Because the Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution makes no reference to the people being counted being citizens. Only free people.
As reported, the results of the Census also didn't reference which individuals counted were citizens vs. non-citizens.
As far as I can tell it wasn't until the 1820 census that a count was made of "foreigners not naturalized."
Considering representation is based upon the census numbers I would have thought that implied we needed to count who are actually the voters in a region.
Democrats in the border states allow their states to be flooded with illegals.
Get more representatives in Congress based on non-citizens.
What could be wrong with that?
-
"Considering representation is based upon the census numbers I would have thought that implied we needed to count who are actually the voters in a region."
Slaves didn't vote, but for representation purposes they were counted as 3/5s of a person.
Women didn't vote, but they were counted.
Children didn't vote, but they were counted.
The purpose of the census was multi-fold, to literally count EVERYONE living under the jurisdiction of the US government (notice that the census didn't count untaxed Indians, meaning that they weren't under Federal jurisdiction) and use those numbers to establish representation but to also establish taxation levels.
-
"Considering representation is based upon the census numbers I would have thought that implied we needed to count who are actually the voters in a region."
Slaves didn't vote, but for representation purposes they were counted as 3/5s of a person.
Women didn't vote, but they were counted.
Children didn't vote, but they were counted.
The purpose of the census was multi-fold, to literally count EVERYONE living under the jurisdiction of the US government (notice that the census didn't count untaxed Indians, meaning that they weren't under Federal jurisdiction) and use those numbers to establish representation but to also establish taxation levels.
Well if that’s the law I guess we should just let the left have the country.
Even if we lose the country at least we will still have our precious principles.
The left is exploiting an unforeseen loop hole.
Massive third world economic migrations were not foreseen.
The right is playing checkers and the left is waging total war.
-
"Massive third world economic migrations were not foreseen."
Be VERY careful trying to use that argument.
That's the same argument that the left loves to use in its push for gun control.
-
"Massive third world economic migrations were not foreseen."
Be VERY careful trying to use that argument.
That's the same argument that the left loves to use in its push for gun control.
It’s very frustrating that our (the right) respect for order and rule of law has so effectively being used as the very weapon to destroy the country.
They’ve managed to remake the constitution and our laws into a suicide pact.
-
Well, don't worry, the *expletive deleted*it that the government's started putting in the chemtrail mix will kill off hetero white men quickly enough.
-
Well, don't worry, the *expletive deleted*it that the government's started putting in the chemtrail mix will kill off hetero white men quickly enough.
They don’t need chemtrails.
The west is doing it chemical free by its men and women willingly choosing insanity.
-
"Considering representation is based upon the census numbers I would have thought that implied we needed to count who are actually the voters in a region."
Slaves didn't vote, but for representation purposes they were counted as 3/5s of a person.
Women didn't vote, but they were counted.
Children didn't vote, but they were counted.
The purpose of the census was multi-fold, to literally count EVERYONE living under the jurisdiction of the US government (notice that the census didn't count untaxed Indians, meaning that they weren't under Federal jurisdiction) and use those numbers to establish representation but to also establish taxation levels.
I'm good with counting everyone, but everyone needs to step forward and declare who they are, citizen or not, and there is zero reason why we shouldn't know how many citizens vs non-citizens are living in this country.
-
I'm good with counting everyone, but everyone needs to step forward and declare who they are, citizen or not, and there is zero reason why we shouldn't know how many citizens vs non-citizens are living in this country.
Good point.
Everyone gets categorized except as citizens/non-citizens why?
Well we know why.
-
The Constitution also doesn't say anything about gender, marital status, etc. Those questions get asked anyway. The citizenship question (at this stage anyway) does not serve to reduce counts by the amount of non-citizens, just to provide statistical information.
Essentially lots of Republicans like the idea because they either think it will reduce responses in areas with lots of illegals which will tend to reduce Democratic representation (because lying on the census form is so difficult and because an illegal immigrant would never lie to the government), or they think they can make hay with the statistics after the fact.
Lots of Democrats hate the idea for the same reason, and because they think illegals should be voting (for Democrats) from the day they jump the fence until the day vote fraudsters can no longer read their name on their gravestone.
Illegal immigrants are a problem that I don't have a good answer to. Honestly, the Democrats might actually benefit from an honest accounting of the size of the problem since I can't think of a rational way to address a problem that large.
-
My issue is if one state has say 10 Million citizens and another state has 5 million citizens and 5 million non-citizens, the first state should get more representation in Congress. I don't really care if it suppresses someone's response. Representation in Congress is the whole point of the census.
-
My issue is if one state has say 10 Million citizens and another state has 5 million citizens and 5 million non-citizens, the first state should get more representation in Congress. I don't really care if it suppresses someone's response. Representation in Congress is the whole point of the census.
That's pretty much the core of the issue. Places like California want more representation/uncle sugar money through illegitimate means.
-
My issue is if one state has say 10 Million citizens and another state has 5 million citizens and 5 million non-citizens, the first state should get more representation in Congress. I don't really care if it suppresses someone's response. Representation in Congress is the whole point of the census.
I don't disagree, but isn't the right way to fix that a Constitutional Amendment?
-
I don't disagree, but isn't the right way to fix that a Constitutional Amendment?
So do nothing?
Tilting at windmills doesn’t count.
Pursuing constitutional amendments regarding anything in today’s climate = tilting at windmills = actually doing nothing.
-
So do nothing?
Tilting at windmills doesn’t count.
Pursuing constitutional amendments regarding anything in today’s climate = tilting at windmills = actually doing nothing.
Would you prefer we ignore the Constitution when we don't like what it says?
-
Would you prefer we ignore the Constitution when we don't like what it says?
I would consider the states, cities, judges and law enforcement agencies ignoring the current immigration laws to be a constitutional crises.
Not to give you a clue or anything, the other side is ignoring the law at will and getting away with it.
-
I would consider the states, cities, judges and law enforcement agencies ignoring the current immigration laws to be a constitutional crises.
Not to give you a clue or anything, the other side is ignoring the law at will and getting away with it.
Yes, I'm aware. I repeat my question. Would you prefer we ignore the Constitution when we don't like what it says?
-
Yes, I'm aware. I repeat my question. Would you prefer we ignore the Constitution when we don't like what it says?
It could be argued that failure to follow the stated purpose of the second is ignoring the constitution.
-
"Considering representation is based upon the census numbers I would have thought that implied we needed to count who are actually the voters in a region."
Slaves didn't vote, but for representation purposes they were counted as 3/5s of a person.
Women didn't vote, but they were counted.
Children didn't vote, but they were counted.
The purpose of the census was multi-fold, to literally count EVERYONE living under the jurisdiction of the US government (notice that the census didn't count untaxed Indians, meaning that they weren't under Federal jurisdiction) and use those numbers to establish representation but to also establish taxation levels.
What's wrong with counting everyone and asking if they're citizens, and using the no. of citizens to determine representation? That was the reason for the citizen question, wasn't it?
-
It could be argued that failure to follow the stated purpose of the second is ignoring the constitution.
I don't believe that just because my political opponents want to redefine the Constitution to serve their own purposes without actually amending it that our side should do the same thing when it serves our purposes. Down that road lies a constant and escalating tit-for-tat abrogation of rights which would lead to a hell that I don't even want to consider.
Ron likes to hint that the Right should start abandoning core principles in order to better fight the Left using the same dirty tricks the Left uses. That's the kind of strategy that loses the war no matter how many battles it helps you win.
What's wrong with counting everyone and asking if they're citizens, and using the no. of citizens to determine representation? That was the reason for the citizen question, wasn't it?
1. Because that is not what the Constitution says.
2. Not explicitly, no. It was billed as an informational question like ones about the gender of the occupants. I believe Republicans who support this are hoping for a reduction in illegal immigrant participation in the census and that Democrats are afraid of it, but no, that isn't the purpose.
-
I don't believe that just because my political opponents want to redefine the Constitution to serve their own purposes without actually amending it that our side should do the same thing when it serves our purposes. Down that road lies a constant and escalating tit-for-tat abrogation of rights which would lead to a hell that I don't even want to consider.
Ron likes to hint that the Right should start abandoning core principles in order to better fight the Left using the same dirty tricks the Left uses. That's the kind of strategy that loses the war no matter how many battles it helps you win.
1. Because that is not what the Constitution says.
2. Not explicitly, no. It was billed as an informational question like ones about the gender of the occupants. I believe Republicans who support this are hoping for a reduction in illegal immigrant participation in the census and that Democrats are afraid of it, but no, that isn't the purpose.
You haven’t laid out any path for preserving the integrity of our electoral system.
You let the left set the rules of the game then lose on principle.
That’s how the country was lost.
The court very clearly said there is nothing unconstitutional about the question, they just didn’t like the Administrations reason for including it on the census.
Letting the Supreme Court rule as petty tyrants is not constitutional government.
What’s one of the primary purposes of the census? So we can accurately map out congressional representatives districts. Representatives represent their constituents, the legal voters.
How does the Supreme Court hindering the intent of the census law not trigger your constitutional crises concern?
Republicans are natural born losers who never fail to show their belly when the left cracks the whip.
Always looking for a way to be losers.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/zEYCXlB.png)
-
What's wrong with counting everyone and asking if they're citizens, and using the no. of citizens to determine representation? That was the reason for the citizen question, wasn't it?
There is nothing wrong with asking if they’re citizens.
The whole argument is absurd and folks purportedly on our side are going along with the insanity.
It’s like they have a fetish for submitting and losing. It’s weird.
-
I have no problem with asking about citizenship on the census, it seems like useful information to have.
But
You guys do know that representation is explicitly based on "free persons" not "citizens"*, right? That's why the census counts everyone.
Because we tax non citizens, and the Founders had, IIRC, some rather specific ideas vis a vis taxation and representation.
*I am aware that the 14th ammendment ties representation to the right to vote, which should solve the "representatives for illegals" thing, but it still has a distinction between "people" and "citizen ".
-
I agree that there is nothing unconstitutional with asking if people are citizens (or if they have a firearm in the home, for that matter). As Dogmush mentions, using citizenship as a filter for the counts, on the other hand, would appear to be unconstitutional.
We know you are so much better than those loser idiots with principles, but it is interesting how you really, really don't want to answer a direct question.
-
...... 1. Because that is not what the Constitution says.
2. Not explicitly, no. It was billed as an informational question like ones about the gender of the occupants. I believe Republicans who support this are hoping for a reduction in illegal immigrant participation in the census and that Democrats are afraid of it, but no, that isn't the purpose.
I think that most Rs are ok with counting illegals per se, but just not using those numbers to determine representation (ILlegal immigrant, not ALL immigrant).
-
Reading Trump is expected to announce an EO on the matter today
-
I think that most Rs are ok with counting illegals per se, but just not using those numbers to determine representation (ILlegal immigrant, not ALL immigrant).
I don't like the idea of inflating the representation of strongly Democratic regions based on the huge number of illegal immigrants living there, but if we're going to point to the Constitution to defend rights, we can't just wipe our backsides with it when we disagree with it.
I'd fully support an amendment that redefines representation based on the number of legal citizens. I don't support what Ron keeps implying with winks and nods (but doesn't have the stones to come out and admit) where we redefine or ignore the Constitution when we want it to say something different than it does because he thinks crapping on the Constitution is the best way to stop the Left from crapping on the Constitution.
-
crapping on the Constitution is the best way to stop the Left from crapping on the Constitution.
This viewpoint has unfortunately been growing in popularity recently.
Reading Trump is expected to announce an EO on the matter today
He's got a pen and he's got a phone. =|
-
I think that most Rs are ok with counting illegals per se, but just not using those numbers to determine representation (ILlegal immigrant, not ALL immigrant).
On the surface I think that sounds ok, but it pretty rapidly gets sticky.
We tax illegals. (Some duck taxes, true, but we have a process in place to tax them, and many do, in fact, pay taxes). If the government taxes them, they should get some representation in that government. Even if I disagree with them. Voting for that representation is another issue, spelled out in a different part of COTUS. But apportionment of representation is pretty clearly based on people, not citizens.
Which is why it's important to actually enforce our immigration laws. This wasn't an issue when the total number of illegals was a tiny fraction of the population. It was just statistical noise. We need to figure out what we want our immigration policy to be, pass laws to that effect, and enforce those laws. Purposefully making and keeping an underclass that only sorta has rights is disgraceful, and it's what our legislature has been doing for 40 odd years.
Unfortunately, the legislature has also been steadily abrogating their powers for 40 years so they can excuse never taking a stand on anything. So I wouldn't expect them to suddenly find a spine on this issue.
-
If we're taxing them then that means we know who they are and where they are. So why are they still here illegally?
-
They are only free because we refuse to arrest and deport them for breaking our laws.
Don't talk to me about respect for the law when the law is being disregarded and purposefully being broken.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Which is why it's important to actually enforce our immigration laws. This wasn't an issue when the total number of illegals was a tiny fraction of the population. It was just statistical noise.
This is the crux of the issue to me. I don't have much of a problem counting residents who are legal immigrants, many, if not most of them, on the path to citizenship. Were illegals still "statistical noise", I couldn't care less about the citizenship question. I just don't believe it's fair, nor do I think the founding fathers even considered, that there would be a very statistically significant portion of the population that would not only be here illegally, but whose numbers would be used regarding congressional representation.
The correct question on the census would be, "Are you here illegally?" so that illegals could be separated from the representation count (in Ben's perfect world, constitution aside). Obviously it's a question that can neither be asked, nor would be answered, but it's really the crux of the problem. Not "citizen vs non-citizen", but "legally here or illegally here".
-
This is the crux of the issue to me. I don't have much of a problem counting residents who are legal immigrants, many, if not most of them, on the path to citizenship. Were illegals still "statistical noise", I couldn't care less about the citizenship question. I just don't believe it's fair, nor do I think the founding fathers even considered, that there would be a very statistically significant portion of the population that would not only be here illegally, but whose numbers would be used regarding congressional representation.
The correct question on the census would be, "Are you here illegally?" so that illegals could be separated from the representation count (in Ben's perfect world, constitution aside). Obviously it's a question that can neither be asked, nor would be answered, but it's really the crux of the problem. Not "citizen vs non-citizen", but "legally here or illegally here".
The real crux of the problem is that the R's never made a concerted effort to get rid of them all because of cheap labor. The D's want the question left off so they can find ways to let them vote illegally, offer them free *expletive deleted*it, and redraw districts so that they never lose power again.
-
On the surface I think that sounds ok, but it pretty rapidly gets sticky.
We tax illegals. (Some duck taxes, true, but we have a process in place to tax them, and many do, in fact, pay taxes). If the government taxes them, they should get some representation in that government. Even if I disagree with them. Voting for that representation is another issue, spelled out in a different part of COTUS. But apportionment of representation is pretty clearly based on people, not citizens.
Which is why it's important to actually enforce our immigration laws. This wasn't an issue when the total number of illegals was a tiny fraction of the population. It was just statistical noise. We need to figure out what we want our immigration policy to be, pass laws to that effect, and enforce those laws. Purposefully making and keeping an underclass that only sorta has rights is disgraceful, and it's what our legislature has been doing for 40 odd years.
Unfortunately, the legislature has also been steadily abrogating their powers for 40 years so they can excuse never taking a stand on anything. So I wouldn't expect them to suddenly find a spine on this issue.
I think most sentient Americans (I already limit the concerned population here) should be very upset at the idea of regulating representation by counting illegals. I suppose there is a lot of room for hypocrisy here .... if it's perceived most areas with illegals that would gain reps are liberal, the Dems might like it but the Republicans .... not so much. And vica-versa.
As to exactly what the Constitution says, I don't want to ignore it. But I have to admit right now I'm not eminently certain I recall what it says, and I have a copy so I will check. I also have a copy of THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION, an excellent well researched and annotated examination of the Constition and Bill of Rights, and I will also check that, as it is likely to make plain the meaning and history behind sections of the document that might escape the attention of the layperson.
-
They are only free because we refuse to arrest and deport them for breaking our laws.
Arresting and deporting is a much better solution that doesn't require violating the Constitution, although it's about as likely as a Constitutional amendment changing the way representatives are apportioned.
Don't talk to me about respect for the law when the law is being disregarded and purposefully being broken.
The law absolutely is being disregarded and purposefully broken. What's your solution? In clear, honest language, if you will.
-
I was hoping Barr would pull a rabbit out of his hat but on the way home I heard the Administration is dropping the issue.
Our devotion to Lex Rex has been weaponized against us.
I wish I had an answer Cordex.
What we have been doing, expecting leftists to play by the rules, is not working.
Hoping the left and the Democrat leadership starts respecting the rule of law, founding principles and originalist interpretations of the law is delusional.
The fundamental change the left is pursuing is replacing all of the above principles, as well as demographic replacement of conservative and heritage Americans with a more compliant people.
-
Hold the phone
President Trump has apparently abandoned plans to pursue a citizenship question on the 2020 census. But, he still has a plan to collect the data. Speaking at the Rose Garden Thursday afternoon, Trump announced a new executive order that would order federal agencies to report citizenship information to the Commerce Department.
Trump Announces New Executive Order to Collect Citizenship Data
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/07/11/trump-census-speech-n2549941
-
Well, I guess the census question is a moot point now ....
-
I only care about the EO if it's immediately followed by efforts to repatriate all non citizens.
-
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/12/no-illegal-immigrants-not-included-census/
In fact, the department has decided resident illegals are included. The Residence Rule makes many other determinations, including decisions as to who should be counted in which state. For instance, tourists are counted at their homes. Foreign visitors are not counted, but foreign U.S. residents are, without distinction as to legal or illegal status.
Government - making reasonable, common-sense decisions since never!
-
I wish I had an answer Cordex.
What we have been doing, expecting leftists to play by the rules, is not working.
I've never expected them to. That's never been at issue and you know that.
You have implied repeatedly that it is time for us to start breaking rules and violating the Constitution wherever it is inconvenient in order to improve our chances of winning. Whenever I've asked you to clarify you've dodged the issue. You're quick to criticize people on the right who hold to principles even when inconvenient as being weak and stupid losers and have insinuated that it would be so much better to follow a less righteous path. Apparently you are smart enough to realize that outright admitting you want to trash the Constitution to this group would be unpopular, so you just keep alluding to it.
Hoping the left and the Democrat leadership starts respecting the rule of law, founding principles and originalist interpretations of the law is delusional.
The fundamental change the left is pursuing is replacing all of the above principles, as well as demographic replacement of conservative and heritage Americans with a more compliant people.
roo_n,
I don't think that the left or Democrat leadership is ever going to start respecting rule of law, founding principles, or originalist interpretations of the Constitution. I do expect the people on my side to do that. If they don't, I'm not they're on my side anymore.
As far as the last bit, you keep trying to play the same racial game as the left. No thanks.
-
I've never expected them to. That's never been at issue and you know that.
You have implied repeatedly that it is time for us to start breaking rules and violating the Constitution wherever it is inconvenient in order to improve our chances of winning. Whenever I've asked you to clarify you've dodged the issue. You're quick to criticize people on the right who hold to principles even when inconvenient as being weak and stupid losers and have insinuated that it would be so much better to follow a less righteous path. Apparently you are smart enough to realize that outright admitting you want to trash the Constitution to this group would be unpopular, so you just keep alluding to it.
roo_n,
I don't think that the left or Democrat leadership is ever going to start respecting rule of law, founding principles, or originalist interpretations of the Constitution. I do expect the people on my side to do that. If they don't, I'm not they're on my side anymore.
As far as the last bit, you keep trying to play the same racial game as the left. No thanks.
It’s not racial games it’s a calculated demographic attack on the majority population.
If you think this is “just happening” without intention I’m afraid you're being naive.
Since 1965 the nations majority population has been losing influence due to the unprecedented inflows of immigrants from all over the planet. The act that was passed was a “racial” act in that it specifically made it easier for non Europeans over Europeans to immigrate here. That was the stated intent of the law.
The illegal migrant population is immense and the government has refused to actually count them probably because of the inevitable backlash from American citizens of all races/ethnicities.
This isn’t just about what race or where these folks are from. It’s the overall numbers and the fact that every single immigrant group regardless of race or ethnicity votes in overwhelming majorities for the leftists who “play the racial game”.
All people are not the same. These aren’t red white and blue proto Americans just waiting for the chance to let our magic dirt turn them into rugged individualists who believe in natural rights and limited government.
It takes generations to assimilate to a culture generally but now there are so many immigrants and illegal migrants that the core culture is weakened, there is no American culture to assimilate to, other than being a consumer.
Across the board the majority of immigrant populations believe in the opposite of American ideals and Republican principles. As soon as they can vote, they vote that way, legally or illegally.
They are playing the race game while you and others virtue signal your country away.
-
It’s not even the race game. It’s simply the demographic game.
Flooding empires with foreigners is a time tested tactic for toppling them from within.
You don’t see unfettered massive immigration into China now do you?
Regarding the immigration act of 1965. Ignore all the flowery language, just look at the results of its implementation and the resistance to changing anything it has wrought.
Don’t believe the narratives, believe the actions and results. They are verifiable.