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

Larniavc said:

Have you read the article? It makes lots of claims but would point me to the part that has the hard evidence?

‘We all know” and ‘polls show’ obviously don’t count.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

NxNW said:

Good thing they were never able to make it over Trump's wall.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that "wall."

Cut through with tools you can get from Home Depot. Multibillion dollar wasted effort.

Valletta said:

There is mounting evidence that the Biden administration tried to cook the books to give Democrats an unfair advantage, which explains why a minority of Democrats (43% compared to 83% Republicans) approve of President Trump’s decision to take a new census that excludes illegal aliens from the population count.

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

We know that the Biden administration deliberately broke the border and ushered in over 20 million illegal aliens, at a huge cost to the nation’s social welfare system.

nypost.com

Certainly by now many Democratic realize that illegals counted in the census did substantially help Democrats.

Click to expand...

Wait - when was the census? How did that have anything to do with Biden?

When will the next one be? What is it that the Constitution says should be counted?

DaisyDay said:

Wait - when was the census? How did that have anything to do with Biden?

When will the next one be? What is it that the Constitution says should be counted?

Click to expand...

Two of the states with the largest number of illegal aliens are Florida and Texas. I wonder if Trump has given that any thought when he proposed to not count them in the census.

Apparently, the SCOTUS has ruled that, as the 14th Amendment requires,that all residents be counted.

Valletta said:

We know--the border was safe, secure, and closed.

Click to expand...

That would have been an economic disaster. Mexico is our second-largest trading partner. America is not East Germany. Nor should it aspire to be.

NxNW said:

Good thing they were never able to make it over Trump's wall.

Click to expand...

And if they do, they shouldn't be counted.

The Barbarian said:

Two of the states with the largest number of illegal aliens are Florida and Texas. I wonder if Trump has given that any thought when he proposed to not count them in the census.

Apparently, the SCOTUS has ruled that, as the 14th Amendment requires,that all residents be counted.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS was wrong on that count. I dont believe for a second that the intent was to count illegal residents as a method to decide representation. Since illegals can't vote for their represenatives. Just like Roe v Wade, it would be nice to see it over turned.

rjs330 said:

SCOTUS was wrong on that count. I dont believe for a second that the intent was to count illegal residents as a method to decide representation. Since illegals can't vote for their represenatives. Just like Roe v Wade, it would be nice to see it over turned.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they should be counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes as there is precedent for that - but then again, women and children have always been counted despite their lack of suffrage.

rjs330 said:

SCOTUS was wrong on that count. I dont believe for a second that the intent was to count illegal residents as a method to decide representation.

Click to expand...

First, Amendment XIV clearly indicates the whole number of people residing, not just some of them. Second, the amendment has nothing to do with illegal aliens, since there were no illegal aliens in the United States at that time. It wasn't until the late 19th century that immigration was limited.

rjs330 said:

Since illegals can't vote for their represenatives. Just like Roe v Wade, it would be nice to see it over turned.

Click to expand...

The difference is, Roe v. Wade was based on an interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Here, one would need a Constitutional amendment to change the law.

DaisyDay said:

Perhaps they should be counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes as there is precedent for that - but then again, women and children have always been counted despite their lack of suffrage.

Click to expand...

Only citizens should be counted for representation. No 3/5s.

The Barbarian said:

First, Amendment XIV clearly indicates the whole number of people residing, not just some of them. Second, the amendment has nothing to do with illegal aliens, since there were no illegal aliens in the United States at that time. It wasn't until the late 19th century that immigration was limited.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Illegals now exist and since there were none then as opposed to now the language isn't applicable. Now Illegals are not entitled to be counted as rhey cant vote and have representation because THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. At the time the residents were supposed to be here.

The Barbarian said:

The difference is, Roe v. Wade was based on an interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Here, one would need a Constitutional amendment to change the law.

Click to expand...

No just an understanding that residents of the time were supposed to be here. Illegals are not.

Vambram said:

The President does respect the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Provide an example of this current president respecting the Constitution.

-CryptoLutheran

rjs330 said:

Exactly. Illegals now exist and since there were none then as opposed to now the language isn't applicable. Now Illegals are not entitled to be counted as rhey cant vote and have representation because THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. At the time the residents were supposed to be here.

Click to expand...

First, illegal immigrants did exist in the United States when the 14th Amendment was passed. In 1808, they banned the importation of slaves. However, some people still kept bringing them into sell them. All of those were illegal immigrants and were not supposed to be here. So this argument that illegal immigrants didn't exist is inaccurate.

Even if illegal immigrants didn't exist yet--and as noted, they did--the argument still fails. Let's again look at the relevant text of the Constitution from the Fourteenth Amendment:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Whole number of persons (well, excluding Indians not taxed, which refers to them living on tribal reservations). Not "number of persons who are supposed to be here". Whether they're here legally or illegally, an immigrant is a person. The language is completely applicable to illegal immigrants. Someone does not stop being a "person" because they are here illegally. Maybe if it said "inhabitants" or "residents" one could try to make an argument it requires some kind of legal residence, but "persons" obviously includes everyone.

Indeed, if the word person somehow excluded people who are not supposed to be in the United States, that means that states do things as extreme as executing illegal immigrants without any due process of law. The following is also found in the Fourteenth Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, someone could say maybe it was a mistake to not exclude illegal immigrants from the census, and that given the dramatically higher number of them in the country now than back then this should be adjusted, but a law does not mystically start meaning something different just because the people who passed didn't properly take into account later circumstances. The 18th Amendment (prohibiting alcohol in the United States) did not suddenly stop being in the Constitution because the people who passed it didn't realize the various problems it was going to cause, like massively empowering organized crime. They instead passed a new amendment to repeal it.

Similarly, if someone thinks that they erred in making the census so broad and that it should be limited to legal residents or even limited to citizens, then they should advocate for a constitutional amendment to fix it. But until such time as that amendment passes, the census is to be done on the basis of all persons in the country (excluding from Indians not taxed), and this includes illegal immigrants.

rjs330 said:

Exactly. Illegals now exist and since there were none then as opposed to now the language isn't applicable. Now Illegals are not entitled to be counted as rhey cant vote and have representation because THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. At the time the residents were supposed to be here.

Click to expand...

That isn't in the Constitution. So it would have to be amended to change how the count is done.

Moreover, ignoring a significant portion of the population would be damaging to society, Things like emergency services are allocated according to population. Accurate numbers are essential for many such functions.

The Barbarian said:

Funny you should mention that "wall."

Cut through with tools you can get from Home Depot. Multibillion dollar wasted effort.

Click to expand...

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

(Trump's "Big Beautiful Wall" utterly fails to stop illegal immigration)

ozso said:

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

Click to expand...

Another multi-billion dollar boondoggle? What exactly do you think "armed AI drones" are going to do for us?

The Barbarian said:

(Trump's "Big Beautiful Wall" utterly fails to stop illegal immigration)

Click to expand...

Illegal border crossing have sharply decreased.

The Barbarian said:

Another multi-billion dollar boondoggle?

Click to expand...

I don't mean big military drones. Conventional drones will suffice. Like the flamethrower variety.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

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

JSRG said:

First, illegal immigrants did exist in the United States when the 14th Amendment was passed. In 1808, they banned the importation of slaves. However, some people still kept bringing them into sell them. All of those were illegal immigrants and were not supposed to be here. So this argument that illegal immigrants didn't exist is inaccurate.

Even if illegal immigrants didn't exist yet--and as noted, they did--the argument still fails. Let's again look at the relevant text of the Constitution from the Fourteenth Amendment:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Whole number of persons (well, excluding Indians not taxed, which refers to them living on tribal reservations). Not "number of persons who are supposed to be here". Whether they're here legally or illegally, an immigrant is a person. The language is completely applicable to illegal immigrants. Someone does not stop being a "person" because they are here illegally. Maybe if it said "inhabitants" or "residents" one could try to make an argument it requires some kind of legal residence, but "persons" obviously includes everyone.

Indeed, if the word person somehow excluded people who are not supposed to be in the United States, that means that states do things as extreme as executing illegal immigrants without any due process of law. The following is also found in the Fourteenth Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, someone could say maybe it was a mistake to not exclude illegal immigrants from the census, and that given the dramatically higher number of them in the country now than back then this should be adjusted, but a law does not mystically start meaning something different just because the people who passed didn't properly take into account later circumstances. The 18th Amendment (prohibiting alcohol in the United States) did not suddenly stop being in the Constitution because the people who passed it didn't realize the various problems it was going to cause, like massively empowering organized crime. They instead passed a new amendment to repeal it.

Similarly, if someone thinks that they erred in making the census so broad and that it should be limited to legal residents or even limited to citizens, then they should advocate for a constitutional amendment to fix it. But until such time as that amendment passes, the census is to be done on the basis of all persons in the country (excluding from Indians not taxed), and this includes illegal immigrants.

Click to expand...

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.

rjs330 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is very confusing. You say my post "affirms" your opinion. You then immediately say that "All were considered legal residents since there was no such thing as an illegal" despite the fact that I in my post, the very one you are quoting, explained how that was wrong.

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.

Even if there were not yet illegal immigrants at the time, your argument would still be wrong--but the fact that there were illegal immigrants living in the country at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's passage topples your claim even further.

rjs330 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is perhaps a reasonable policy argument, just like there are various reasonable policy arguments to suggest for constitutional amendments. 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.

Again, the 18th amendment did not suddenly change just because people realized it was having various problems they didn't foresee. By the kind of logic you're presenting, when it said "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited" all someone has to do is to say that the people who made it 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.

rjs330 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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? I am equally sure no one who passed the Fourth Amendment was thinking of computers--does that mean the government can, without any warrant whatsoever, hack into your computer? These are actually far more credible interpretations than what you propose.

Your idea goes well beyond living constitutionalism (for those unaware, to quote Wikipedia, living constitutionalism is "the viewpoint that the U.S. constitution holds a dynamic meaning even if the document is not formally amended"), an ideology that conservatives have (correctly!) long crusaded against. But at least living constitutionalism normally takes vague terms and then tries to redefine them according to modern standards, ignoring what they meant at the time the amendment passed (e.g. how "liberty" suddenly included a right to an abortion). However, unlike the more amorphous term "liberty", the term "person" is very clear and specific. Your idea is to not only ignore what the term meant at the time, but also ignore what the term means now.

So your idea goes beyond living constitutionalism in not merely swapping out the original meaning of words in the Constitution in favor of more modern ideas of those words, but rather swapping out the original meaning and then not even using a modern meaning of the word, but making up an entirely new one that people don't use.