Oh, it is ON! CA sues over Census Question.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The Bill of Rights applies to everyone in the world in their dealings with the US government. It isn't limited to citizens only. There's a few rights which apply to citizens only such as the right to vote, but that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is the amount of representation each state gets in Congress. And for that, we should definitely be including all residents in a state.

California has a high percentage of illegal aliens but that is their own fault. They did it to themselves by defying Federal law and declaring themselves a sanctuary state. Instead of respecting US immigration laws they harbored criminals. Now, after the fact, they are trying to use the end result of their ongoing defiance of immigration law to establish a greater political presence.

You can agree to that if you like but to me there is something fundamentally wrong with breaking the law to gain political power. Its not just a law that is being broken, it is an ideal that is being violated. If California had found itself in this predicament due to no action of its own I would still find it difficult to accept. But I can not willingly ignore the possibility that this was an engineered device to gain undeserved political power.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

The document is less flawed that the education of our nation.

It just seems to me that there is no protection provided for non-citizens to have representation.

If that is the case, then we have a Special Counsel that is investigating nothing.

Non citizens have had representation in the past, the 3/5's compromise is written directly into the document. I'm not saying we should go back to that, only that representing non citizens isn't without precedent.

As far as Mueller goes, that's a tricky one. I think the nuance there is whether foreign support is coming from the people or from the state. I see a difference between an independent Russian citizen trying to influence our campaign and something linked to the state trying to influence a campaign. The real issue though isn't what money others give, because we can't stop that. The real issue is if any collaboration was taking place, overtly or even covertly as candidates do with PAC's. But, that investigation is broad and rightly or wrongly seems to be going well beyond campaign interference.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If that is the case, then we have a Special Counsel that is investigating nothing.

That is an excellent point!

If we are to accept the premise that the Bill of Rights, and even the Constitution itself, applies outside US borders, then since our laws derive directly from the Constitution they should be universal as well. We should immediately start invading China, Russia, India, etc. to enforce our laws. And of course, since the laws are universal, so are the enumerated rights and there can be no wrongdoing in Russian collusion to interfere in an election. After all, Russians are now held to the same legal status as US citizens and have as much right to intervene in an election as an American.

However, if we are to accept that the Constitution is specific to the United States and its citizenry and legal visitors, and that the Bill of Rights is not a government-issued list but rather a partial listing of human rights beyond the reach of a government, it then follows that Russian interference is not acceptable in our election. But it also follows that our government has no business interfering in the affairs of those outside the legal domain of the United States.

I prefer the latter legal theory myself.

Legal domain is the acceptance of the laws of the country one has citizenship in. For natural-born citizens, that is implied from birth by the parents' citizenship (or even their legal status). For naturalized citizens, that legal domain must be accepted in an oath taken upon successful completion of the requirements for citizenship. For visitors, temporary legal domain is accepted upon entry with a proper VISA/passport. Illegal immigrants, however, make no such indication they are accepting the legal domain of the United States, especially since they refuse, in the very act of immigrating illegally, acceptance of our laws.

By this theory, anyone not a citizen of the United States has no business desiring or accepting full representation in the Congress or Electoral College; they have not fully accepted permanent legal dominion. The Constitution does allow them some representation based on their legal status: 3/5 of a count. But those here illegally should not receive that (although they will under the proposed change).

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah, the Mueller thing was me being glib...sorry and you can ignore.

Im not even acknowledging the 3/5 doctrine as a possibility, as I find it to have some questionable moral background.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah, the Mueller thing was me being glib...sorry and you can ignore.

Im not even acknowledging the 3/5 doctrine as a possibility, as I find it to have some questionable moral background.

I'm not saying we should count illegals as 3/5's a person. Only that it wouldn't be the first time we acknowledged people other than citizens for the purposes of representation. If we're not going to go as far as to give everyone a voice in government, we at least need to apportion Congress such that those people are taken into account.

In the census I see only one possibility which is to count everyone. You won't get accurate results if you include a question that encourages people to lie. And that means certain incriminating data such as citizenship status isn't a question we should include. The census should seek to establish how many people are living in the US. Nothing more, nothing less. And that means that everyone ultimately needs to count equally as a resident.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Constitution applies to people who have dealings with the US government. Other laws have different scopes. Since the Constitution says nothing about campaign finance, it stands to reason that the whos and hows of how it applies don't necessarily obey the same rules. It's completely non contradictory to say people all over the world can be protected by the Constitution in their dealings with the US government while also saying that it's not ok for people outside of our borders or for outside state actors to meddle in our election process, which happens between parties as private entities and states.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

California didn't do it because it would help them politically. They did it, because they had the power to challenge the law in an impactful way. There's things I do and don't like about California, but their approach towards it's residents is definitely one of the states virtues.

We should act in accordance with the spirit of the laws, and that's precisely what California is doing.

a reply to: Aazadan


The spirit of what law(s)? Would you like to apply this same argument to the second amendment? Since we're looking at the spirit of the law, it is clear 2A is against any firearm regulation whatsoever? Sorry, I realize that was O/T but the point is that the spirit of the Census never intended for millions of foreign nationals to be illegally occupying our country.

Are you actually attempting to argue that someone breaking the law shouldn't be subjected to a question that may reveal said illegal activity?

Counting those who cannot vote in any meaningful way toward the vote is exactly the BS liberals are angry at Russia for. Only Russia's "influence" was via a handful of Trolls and anti-Hillary social media groups while liberals are advocating for millions of foreign nationals influencing our electoral process

This is unacceptable. Not to mention the fact Citizenship has been a question in one form or another on the Census for years. The Constitution requires the Census be conducted, and gives considerable leeway to the Executive as to how that specifically is conducted.

a reply to: Aazadan

The Constitution applies to people who have dealings with the US government.

At it's core, the Constitution is a legal document specifying how the Federal government is to operate and specifying certain limitations on its power. The Bill of Rights enumerates those restrictions on what government can not do.

Since foreign nationals are not citizens and thus are only subject to the laws of the US when in the US, the idea that foreign nationals are protected by the Bill of Rights is moot. Perhaps that is what you meant when you said it applied globally, although you had it backwards... it applies to the government only, not to any people anywhere. Laws written under the Constitution apply to people.

In that respect, yes, you could say that the government cannot restrict illegal immigrants from speaking freely. You can say the government cannot interfere in an illegal alien's religious practices, or deny them due process, or violate any of the inalienable rights enumerated. But that's all that applies. The Constitution does not demand that VISAs be approved, or that certain people can marry who, or that for one religious symbol to be displayed, all must be displayed. Those things are specified by laws, not by the Constitution, except that a law may not violate the restrictions the Constitution places on government power.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it specified what questions may be asked on the required census. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a restriction placed on the government's power to regulate immigration and enforce penalties for violation of immigration laws. The government has whatever power is not specified as being out of its jurisdiction. That includes the ability to ask whether a person is a citizen of the US... or for that matter, whether they are registered to vote and what political party they identify with. The only restriction is that the population is counted once every ten years, and

People like to scream "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" whenever things don't go their way. Little children throw temper tantrums and hold their breath too. Both are as meaningful as the other.

Article I Section 2:3

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.

That's all there is. Now, who constitutes a "free person"? I would argue that it would include anyone not in danger of deportation. I would also argue that anyone not a citizen, here illegally, would fall under the same classification as the Indians, who live on reservations which mostly operate outside US law.

However, I do not see the problem with asking a very apt question which goes to the purpose of the census itself. The biggest argument seems to be that people won't answer. I could make the same argument about almost every other legal situation. Why bother having laws against murder if people murder anyway? Wouldn't removing those laws make the murderers much less prone to murder? Speeding laws are very dangerous! Someone could be traveling at 100 mph safely, and yet when they see a cop with his radar gun, they will hit their brakes and disrupt traffic. We should get rid of speed limits!

Logically, your arguments do not hold up.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah, the Mueller thing was me being glib...sorry and you can ignore.

Im not even acknowledging the 3/5 doctrine as a possibility, as I find it to have some questionable moral background.

I'm not saying we should count illegals as 3/5's a person. Only that it wouldn't be the first time we acknowledged people other than citizens for the purposes of representation. If we're not going to go as far as to give everyone a voice in government, we at least need to apportion Congress such that those people are taken into account.

In the census I see only one possibility which is to count everyone. You won't get accurate results if you include a question that encourages people to lie. And that means certain incriminating data such as citizenship status isn't a question we should include. The census should seek to establish how many people are living in the US. Nothing more, nothing less. And that means that everyone ultimately needs to count equally as a resident.

The census is bean counting.

Count them all.

Otherwise just ask CNN.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Vroomfondel

California didn't do it because it would help them politically. They did it, because they had the power to challenge the law in an impactful way. There's things I do and don't like about California, but their approach towards it's residents is definitely one of the states virtues.

We should act in accordance with the spirit of the laws, and that's precisely what California is doing.

California's approach towards their residents is a virtue?

California Pension Crisis
California Highest State Income Tax
California Homeless Crisis
California and Ridiculous Regulations (COW FARTS)
Terrible Policies Causing California's Water Crisis
California Crime Rate Just Getting Worse

These are just a few small examples.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Aazadan


The spirit of what law(s)? Would you like to apply this same argument to the second amendment? Since we're looking at the spirit of the law, it is clear 2A is against any firearm regulation whatsoever? Sorry, I realize that was O/T but the point is that the spirit of the Census never intended for millions of foreign nationals to be illegally occupying our country.

Are you actually attempting to argue that someone breaking the law shouldn't be subjected to a question that may reveal said illegal activity?

Counting those who cannot vote in any meaningful way toward the vote is exactly the BS liberals are angry at Russia for. Only Russia's "influence" was via a handful of Trolls and anti-Hillary social media groups while liberals are advocating for millions of foreign nationals influencing our electoral process

This is unacceptable. Not to mention the fact Citizenship has been a question in one form or another on the Census for years. The Constitution requires the Census be conducted, and gives considerable leeway to the Executive as to how that specifically is conducted.

Interesting.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Vroomfondel

California didn't do it because it would help them politically. They did it, because they had the power to challenge the law in an impactful way. There's things I do and don't like about California, but their approach towards it's residents is definitely one of the states virtues.

We should act in accordance with the spirit of the laws, and that's precisely what California is doing.

Insufferable poverty, rampant homelessness, etc, is not the way to treat residents. And I can think of no other reason to subject residents, legal or otherwise, to such horrible conditions than political power.

If you don't agree with a law you change it. But you don't get to pick and choose which ones you obey and which ones you break, especially as a state. No individual is allowed to do that and neither are states. If California wants to declare itself an independent state not part of the union they are free to do so. But you can say goodbye to any and all assistance from the rest of us as well as representation in our government.

a reply to: Ameilia

Mass transit, clean air, clean water, more permissive financial assistance, responsible tax rates, good roads, low crime, and I could go on.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Homelessness is caused largely by gentrification, which comes about from economic prosperity. The state has done a good job at trying to manage it, but obviously they have work to do. Unfortunately for California, they don't have access to the housing solution most of the rest of the US uses, which is a 1 way bus ticket to California.

As far as the rest goes, the feds can dictate anything they want... but it's up to them to enforce it. It's one of the checks on the system.