Joe Biden threw open the border to rig the census — and elections for Democrats

[A2SG]

What we really need is a fleet of armed AI drones patrolling the border.

What exactly do you think "armed AI drones" are going to do for us?

Strike fear. Just like armed masked kidnappers in unmarked vans.

-- A2SG, look, a 2000 word post!!

 

[Pommer]

All of that affirms my opinion. All were considered legal residents since there was no such thing as an illegal. Everyone had a right to be there. That is NO LONGER TRUE. we have millions who have no right to be a resident. They illegally occupy any space they reside. They aren't supposed to be here. I dont believe the writers of the Ammendment considered the situation since it didn't exist. It cant apply to people who have no right to be here.

Exactly.
It’s not like we can change the law to fit the circumstances!

 

[rjs330]

As I noted, slaves were being imported illegally, and were illegal immigrants. Maybe they were not by choice, but they were illegal immigrants. So yes, at the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, there was such a thing as an illegal immigrant, and there were some living in the United States.

Slaves were freed in the 13th Ammendment. So they were legal residents. They were brought here against their will rather than migrated here illegally like today. Apples and oranges. Your argument is irrelevant.

However, to change the constitution, you need a constitutional amendment. The text of the Constitution does not mystically and magically change just because it arguably isn't good policy due to changing circumstances.

We don't need to change rhe constitution. Just note that the ammendment does not apply to illegals since rhe constitution did not address that issue. If anything the constitution should need to be changed to count illegals rather than the ither way around. Since illegals didn't exist at the time.

presumably weren't trying to give organized crime so much power, so when it says "intoxicating" it actually means "non-existent" meaning it merely prohibits the manufacture, sale, or transportation of liquors that do not exist, thus effectively repealing the amendment.

Irrelevant argument. We aren't talking about organized crime. Organized crime existed at the time.

Again, if it is bad policy, then it should be changed via amendment. The word "person" does not magically change meaning just because you happen to think it would result in better policy.

Nope, it just needs to be understood in rhe context of the time, which only recognized legal residents since there were no illegal ones. Now there are and if people want them counted they need to change rhe constitution to count them.

I'm sure the authors of the First Amendment never considered the Internet. Do you therefore think that the First Amendment does not protect Internet activity?

If you are referring to freedom of speech the 1st ammendment did not put a limit on what type of medium its referring to. And SCOTUS has put limits on it as well saying what it does and does not refer to. SCOTUS certainly could take into consideration the difference between legal and illegal residents since ILLEGALS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE HERE.

At the time it was written it referred to persons who were here as residents because they were legally here. There was no such thing as an illegal. Now there is. If people want illegals counted then the constitution should be amended to do so.

 

[rjs330]

Exactly.
It’s not like we can change the law to fit the circumstances!

Then do so. Change the constitution to count people who are illegally here. Until then we should only be counting legal residents just like were here at the time.

 

[The Barbarian]

At the time it was written it referred to persons who were here as residents because they were legally here. There was no such thing as an illegal. Now there is. If people want illegals counted then the constitution should be amended to do so.

There were no such people as airline pilots, either. But like undocumented workers, they fit into the category of "population" and "people", and so are already mentioned in the 14th amendment.

 

[JSRG]

Slaves were freed in the 13th Ammendment. So they were legal residents. They were brought here against their will rather than migrated here illegally like today. Apples and oranges. Your argument is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. You claimed that there were no illegal immigrants, but there were. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, but didn't say anything about making the illegal immigrants that were here legal.

We don't need to change rhe constitution. Just note that the ammendment does not apply to illegals since rhe constitution did not address that issue. If anything the constitution should need to be changed to count illegals rather than the ither way around. Since illegals didn't exist at the time.

Again, they did exist at the time. But even if they didn't--and, once again, they did--your argument still fails simply because they still count as a person as the word was understood back then and even still today.

Indeed, it's striking the degree to which you refuse to examine the actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which should be the very first thing to look at. You have yet to address the clear fact that "person" means person; someone is a person whether they are an illegal immigrant or not. By your logic, state governments can go on a genocidal rampage and kill all of them with no due process, because the Fourteenth Amendment says that states can't deprive a person of life without due process of law--but your entire argument relies on illegal immigrants not counting as persons. Do you think that illegal immigrants can be killed by governments without any due process? Because again, the exact same word is used in the exact same amendment to say that the state government cannot kill a person without due process, and to also say they must count the full number of persons.

And if there being a new category of person somehow excludes them from the meaning of person, that would mean the government can set an entire class of people (say, all right-handed white people) as "bimpkepidardles" and then say they cannot be counted, because obviously bimpkepidardles was a class of people that didn't exist before.

Irrelevant argument. We aren't talking about organized crime. Organized crime existed at the time.

My point was that your argument was about how it's bad policy to count illegal immigrants towards the census, and how prohibition turning out to not be great policy didn't make it go away.

Nope, it just needs to be understood in rhe context of the time, which only recognized legal residents since there were no illegal ones. Now there are and if people want them counted they need to change rhe constitution to count them.

You continue to ignore the plain text of the Constitution and the obvious meaning of person.

If you are referring to freedom of speech the 1st ammendment did not put a limit on what type of medium its referring to. And SCOTUS has put limits on it as well saying what it does and does not refer to.

And the Fourteenth Amendment does not put a limit on what kind of person it is referring to (outside of the exclusion of Indians not taxed"). Every person counts. You don't get to claim that because there's a new category of person, that somehow means they are not a person, although once again this was not a new category as it existed before, due to illegal immigrants existing prior and existing even at the time.

But even if illegal immigrants were a new category of person--which they were not--and that this meant they weren't intended to be included by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Internet is a new kind of medium. Thus, by your own logic, the Internet is not protected by the First Amendment.

In fact, one can argue based on the text for this far better. The First Amendment says the government can't infringe upon "the press" and "speech". The Internet obviously it not a printing press, and much communication on it does not involve speaking, but typing. This can of course be easily addressed by simply saying that an alternate meaning of "speech" at the time was general communication. However, there was no definition back then or even now for "person" to somehow exclude illegal immigrants, which were then and now considered to be persons.

SCOTUS certainly could take into consideration the difference between legal and illegal residents since ILLEGALS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE HERE.


At the time it was written it referred to persons who were here as residents because they were legally here. There was no such thing as an illegal. Now there is. If people want illegals counted then the constitution should be amended to do so.

Again, you are ignoring the actual text of the Constitution and making up something new to insert into its place. This may be why you, instead of appealing to the actual text of the Constitution, essentially make up what you think it says.