Illegal immigrants could sway elections, experts warn

[BCP1928]

What are you basing your analysis of original intent on?

It's not my analysis. The question has been the object of considerable study by constitutional scholars.

 

[Arcangl86]

It's not my analysis. The question has been the object of considerable study by constitutional scholars.

Ok. I wasn't asking you.

 

[rambot]

What part of "illegal" is not obvious?

What part of "person" suggests "illegal"? How have you come to a different conclusion that hundreds of years legal challenges? What makes your challenge unique from the last ones?

i am a "person" and I am not "illegal" (not that a person can be illegal anyways...kinda messed up, that). So on what legal basis should they be excluded?

 

[Vambram]

What part of "person" suggests "illegal"? How have you come to a different conclusion that hundreds of years legal challenges? What makes your challenge unique from the last ones?

i am a "person" and I am not "illegal" (not that a person can be illegal anyways...kinda messed up, that). So on what legal basis should they be excluded?

You know that I am talking about the illegal immigrants. You know, those who come into a nation illegally?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It makes zero sense to me why you would want to include an illegal population into a national, state, county, and local population count.

How do you know how many people there are if you don’t count them all?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

What part of "illegal" is not obvious?

Their legal status doesn’t matter to a national count of all the people living within the country.

 

[BCP1928]

You know that I am talking about the illegal immigrants. You know, those who come into a nation illegally?

Yes, they committed a misdemeanor when they crossed the border at some other place than a legal port of entry.. However, if they can present a plausible asylum claim then they can legally remain in the country, so they are not illegal any more. While they are in the country they may have a baby who will be a US citizen and who will grow up and vote in the US.

We all agree on that, so there is no use going over it again. It would be more interesting to find out why you thought that possibility was threatening.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Analysis of the original intent of the law makes it clear to me that "persons" does indeed mean the same thing as "citizens."

Not even Donald Trump thought so. (Not that he's a great constitutional scholar.)

He only wanted to add a question to the 2020 census, asking whether the persons in each household were citizens. The Supreme Court prevented him from doing so.

 

[Brihaha]

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. I linked this article in post 41. Another poster thought we only counted citizens in the census too. States use the census count to redraw districts, reapportion seats in congress and to determine needs for hospitals, roads and schools in different locales. We count all residents to better determine needs of communities.

U.S. 2020 Census FAQ

Informing a Smarter World

www.prb.org

 

[The Barbarian]

That is one perspective. But, how about we do something that makes more sense according the writings of the US Constitution and the history of the laws in the USA?

Historically, all resident persons were counted, citizens or not. So there is legal justification for that. There is historical precedent for counting some non-citizens as three-fifths of a person. Perhaps conservatives would accept that compromise? But there is also historical precedent in some states for allowing resident non-citizens to vote. Would that be O.K. for you?

Since we didn't have controls on immigration until very late in the 19th century, the founders left no guidance on "illegal aliens." The concept would have puzzled them.

 

[The Barbarian]

True but the few Republicans who did cheat were unable to affect the outcome. So apart from identifying the Right as the majority share holders of cheating it was largely a waste of their time.

That's the issue. Anyone with any sense would realize that election fraud that wouldn't be so widespread as to be easily detected, is very unlikely to affect the outcome of elections. So a rational person would conclude that cheating isn't worth the risk. Perhaps this is why we have so many more cases of Trump voters cheating than we do for others.