Immigration

[dawg80]

Article 1, section 2.

Again in Amendment 14, section 2

Both of those speak to "citizens." Such that appropriations are made based on the number of citizens...except Indians who are not counted for tax purposes...So! we NEED to know HOW MANY CITIZENS are present in each state, each district, etc...

Thanks for that. All anyone needs to know why Trump is right...AGAIN!!! This guy is batting 1,000! (That's 100%)

It was wrong to change the Census in 1950 to omit that all-important CONSTITUTIONAL question.

[Guisslapp]

Both of those speak to "citizens." Such that appropriations are made based on the number of citizens...except Indians who are not counted for tax purposes...So! we NEED to know HOW MANY CITIZENS are present in each state, each district, etc...

Thanks for that. All anyone needs to know why Trump is right...AGAIN!!! This guy is batting 1,000! (That's 100%)

It was wrong to change the Census in 1950 to omit that all-important CONSTITUTIONAL question.

Read it again. It doesn’t say “citizens”. It says “persons.”

[detltu]

I'm being lazy and don't feel like looking it up, where in the Constitution does it say illegals should be counted in the Census?

There is no mention of legal or citizenship status. There is mention of how to count slaves and women and Indians who are not considered citizens or full citizens. Which Guiss and Champ take as explicit proof that the founders intended everyone to be counted despite illegal immigration not really being a concern at the time of writing. There is certainly room for interpretation as they allowed for partial counting of certain classes. Before the 14th amendment you could argue that they would have likely assigned them some fractional count. I think there is also a pretty good argument to be made that if they are being taxed (and they are) that they are entitled to representation even if they are not allowed to vote.

[Guisslapp]

There is no mention of legal or citizenship status. There is mention of how to count slaves and women and Indians who are not considered citizens or full citizens. Which Guiss and Champ take as explicit proof that the founders intended everyone to be counted despite illegal immigration not really being a concern at the time of writing. There is certainly room for interpretation as they allowed for partial counting of certain classes. Before the 14th amendment you could argue that they would have likely assigned them some fractional count. I think there is also a pretty good argument to be made that if they are being taxed (and they are) that they are entitled to representation even if they are not allowed to vote.

More decisevly, “Citizen” is used in other places of the Constitution, as is “Persons.” Persons is always broader than citizens, so we know that the Constitution is telling you to count more than citizens.

[dawg80]

Read it again. It doesn’t say “citizens”. It says “persons.”

You have to read between the lines.

[Guisslapp]

You have to read between the lines.

If it intended to only apply to citizens, it would say “Citizens” like the Constitution says otherwise when it intends only to apply to citizens. “Persons” is always a broader term than “citizens.”

[DONW]

Judge charged with obstruction of justice for helping immigrant evade ICE https://thehill.com/regulation/court...ce-for-helping

[dawg80]

Judge charged with obstruction of justice for helping immigrant evade ICE https://thehill.com/regulation/court...ce-for-helping

Now goofy Goosey will ask "what law?"

[Guisslapp]

Now goofy Goosey will ask "what law?"

I know the law. You clearly don’t.

[Champ967]

Which Guiss and Champ take as explicit proof that the founders intended

Not really. I’ve always found “founders’ intent” to be pretty weak sauce. I’m not saying it’s completely irrelevant. But I'm not gonna take orders from them.

[johnnylightnin]

Not really. I’ve always found “founders’ intent” to be pretty weak sauce. I’m not saying it’s completely irrelevant. But I'm not gonna take orders from them.

Further, intent CAN be impossible to decipher in certain circumstances.

[Guisslapp]

It is not even about Founder’s intent, specifically. It is basic rules for interpreting and applying legal texts. Word choice matters. “Person” means one thing and “citizen” means something else. The Constitution uses both words and even defines what a citizen is. This, it doesn’t make any sense to construe “Person” only as a citizen when citizen itself is given a specific definition in the Constitution.

[Guisslapp]

Btw, if “person” doesn’t encompass a non-citizen, you can forget about it ever applying to a fetus.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Btw, if “person” doesn’t encompass a non-citizen, you can forget about it ever applying to a fetus.

Hum... so I guess it's ok to murder non-citizens as well now as liberals do the unborn? Sucking their brains out or clipping their spinal cords while alive as well? Seriously?

[Guisslapp]

Hum... so I guess it's ok to murder non-citizens as well now as liberals do the unborn? Sucking their brains out or clipping their spinal cords while alive as well? Seriously?

Only according to you Trumphards that believe immigrants are not persons under the Constitution. I know that they are.