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?What part of "illegal" is not obvious?
You know that I am talking about the illegal immigrants. You know, those who come into a nation illegally?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?
How do you know how many people there are if you don’t count them all?It makes zero sense to me why you would want to include an illegal population into a national, state, county, and local population count.
Their legal status doesn’t matter to a national count of all the people living within the country.What part of "illegal" is not obvious?
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.You know that I am talking about the illegal immigrants. You know, those who come into a nation illegally?
Not even Donald Trump thought so. (Not that he's a great constitutional scholar.)Analysis of the original intent of the law makes it clear to me that "persons" does indeed mean the same thing as "citizens."
No, it does not.
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?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?
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.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.