Trump orders that illegal aliens NOT BE COUNTED in allocating House seats under 2020 census

originally posted by: Rob808
So it wouldn’t exist? Aw snap.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Good one sparky, hur hur.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Rich Z

I believe the important point is that illegal immigrants should not have representation in Congress. So they should have NO influence over the restructuring of our government. They have not earned it, and we do not owe it to them. They also should not be allowed to vote, simply because illegal immigrants should have absolutely no say whatsoever in how this country is run. IMHO.

Agree...

This is why having the questions on the census is really important for not only this BUT to actually get that data point of how many illegals are in the country and what areas. When we could be talk 10 to 20 million people that is a huge data point we can not just ignore as the left wants to say..."nothing to see here"

And, of course, illegals are going to answer that question.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Maybe I'm over-simplifying this, but if you have a database of all SSN #s allocated in the entire United States, along with name/address/status (live or dead) of SSN holders, and you cross reference that against census results and even tax records, shouldn't you have the capability to remove most people who aren't a citizen from the census rolls?

Trump isn't suggesting removing all non citizen residents from the census numbers, only the undocumented ones.

The Census doesn't just count American citizens. It counts EVERYONE living in each state.

Fair point, granted. But then we need to decouple Congressional representation from raw census and occupancy. Sure, count everybody living in the area, but now way non-citizen populations in a given area should have //anything// to do with our system of governmental representation.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Thing is, if one's spouse is for example a Lithuanian citizen and a legal permanent resident, you simply can't assume they are an illegal immigrant then because they answered No to the citizenship question.....

originally posted by: Annee

And, of course, illegals are going to answer that question.

Its against the law not too, wait you might be correct most of what they do is illegal...

originally posted by: chris_stibrany

Thing is, if one's spouse is for example a Lithuanian citizen and a legal permanent resident, you simply can't assume they are an illegal immigrant then because they answered No to the citizenship question.....

True so throw in an illegal question. Are you here legally? lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

And, of course, illegals are going to answer that question.

Its against the law not too, wait you might be correct most of what they do is illegal...

It’s logical to want a full population count. EVERY person.

Other issues can be taken up another way, another time.

originally posted by: Annee

It’s logical to want a full population count. EVERY person.

Other issues can be taken up another way, another time.

Then they take that count to restructure the House, so do you feel an area with a lot of illegals get more representation in Congress while taking that away from real citizens since the 435 is a set number?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

It’s logical to want a full population count. EVERY person.

Other issues can be taken up another way, another time.

Then they take that count to restructure the House, so do you feel an area with a lot of illegals get more representation in Congress while taking that away from real citizens since the 435 is a set number?

I don’t care.

If your goal is a full population count — then you don’t sabotage it.

a reply to: Annee

The goal is not just a full population count. Those populations have spending and political implications. And despite your statement, you have to bear in mind that it is a subversion of our national sovereignty to allow a political party to run interference for illegal immigration solely to secure political power.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

The goal is not just a full population count. Those populations have spending and political implications. And despite your statement, you have to bear in mind that it is a subversion of our national sovereignty to allow a political party to run interference for illegal immigration solely to secure political power.

How do you know their goal isn’t a full population count on this years Census?

Seems to me that is exactly the goal.

originally posted by: Annee

I don’t care.

If your goal is a full population count — then you don’t sabotage it.

You missed my point....lol counting everyone in all their dozens of categories is a full population count to INCLUDE ALL the sub groups that make up that population. Illegals is a pretty good size sub group that should be counted.

originally posted by: Annee

How do you know their goal isn’t a full population count on this years Census?

Seems to me that is exactly the goal.

Because you can see the outcome pretty plain...So lets say South CA get a 5 million increase in population count from undocumented people and so positions shift in the house to count for that extra population. IF we can not determine who is legal and who is illegal then improper shifts in the house can happen.

No one disagrees with a full population count, but there are pages of sub counts within that to determine what makes up that population.

a reply to: Annee

I dont know. What i DO know is the implications of including illegals are severe when you consider what the census is used for.

The fact that we even have to discuss it is absurd honestly. No idea how we have gotten to not even enforcing border security. How does a country call itself a country without first asserting the sovereignty of borders?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I dont know. What i DO know is the implications of including illegals are severe when you consider what the census is used for.

I wonder if the people being held in ICE, and other customs facilities that are holding undocumented immigrants including unsupervised children and families, are currently being recorded in census document, like prison populations are.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

I dont know. What i DO know is the implications of including illegals are severe when you consider what the census is used for.

The fact that we even have to discuss it is absurd honestly. No idea how we have gotten to not even enforcing border security. How does a country call itself a country without first asserting the sovereignty of borders?

Just soze ya know — I didn’t make this up.

I listened to a discussion on it — way back at the beginning of fighting to keep the citizenship question out of the Census.

That’s what they were discussing. They said we’ve had a huge influx of refugees the last few years. We need to get, as accurate as possible, a “people” count. We don’t want any question that might make them hide or fear deportation.

And don’t tell me they have no reason to fear, even if they have papers. Many have been through a lot & trust no one.

They don’t just do a Census, then everyone goes home saying: “See you in 10 years”. Statistical data is only the beginning.

a reply to: Annee

If that is true, then why would they be opposed to ensuring illegals are considered when allocating representatives, funding, etc?

They are already counted on the census.

So if what you say is true they shouldn't oppose ensuring they aren't considered for the above issues.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Annee

If that is true, then why would they be opposed to ensuring illegals are considered when allocating representatives, funding, etc?

They are already counted on the census.

So if what you say is true they shouldn't oppose ensuring they aren't considered for the above issues.

FIRST — count the people.

You wanna go back later and dig deeper? Fine.

a reply to: Annee

Agreed.

But we did that Or am I missing something here?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you have a reason to suspect they aren't?