Should people who are here illegally be counted in the census?

ThatRobGuy · Jan 31, 2026

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/07/nx-s1-5265650/new-census-trump-immigrants-counted

https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouri-ag-files-lawsuit-to-block-census-from-counting-undocumented-immigrants/

If Census counts have implications with regards to the number of house seats and thereby the number of electoral votes a state gets...
(which, someone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they do)

...despite not being able to vote in federal elections, large undocumented populations can still end up giving prevailing party of the state their in an unfair advantage at the federal level.

Would it be a fair statement to suggest that with regards to sanctuary cities/states, there's a bit of a conflict of interest there if their undocumented populations (albeit, unable to vote) are helping their team get more seats and electoral votes?

Is there an opportunity for a "bargain" of sorts?

Where, if a state designates itself as a "sanctuary" or allows their individual cities to do so, ICE leaves them alone, but their undocumented population can't be factored in when it comes time to calculate house seats, electoral votes, or federal funding for various programs.

Oompa Loompa · Jan 31, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/07/nx-s1-5265650/new-census-trump-immigrants-counted

https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouri-ag-files-lawsuit-to-block-census-from-counting-undocumented-immigrants/

If Census counts have implications with regards to the number of house seats and thereby the number of electoral votes a state gets...
(which, someone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they do)

...despite not being able to vote in federal elections, large undocumented populations can still end up giving prevailing party of the state their in an unfair advantage at the federal level.

Would it be a fair statement to suggest that with regards to sanctuary cities/states, there's a bit of a conflict of interest there if their undocumented populations (albeit, unable to vote) are helping their team get more seats and electoral votes?

Illegal immigrants should be deported, not given the right to vote. I know, it sounds crazy...right?

Tuur · Jan 31, 2026

The US Census is required by Article 1, Section 2. The pertinent text is:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The 13th Amendment rendered the 3/5 Clause irrelevant by outlawing slavery throughout the US, but the rest still stands. It does not limit the census to US citizens. The closest it comes to that is "Indians not taxed." What's not stated is that "Indians not taxed" were not considered citizens of the US but of their own nations, which is why treaties between the Indian nations and the US had to be ratified by the Senate. It's also why the State of Georgia got its hands slapped at least three times by trying to make it's own treaties with the Indians, a violation of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

Bottom line is that not counting illegals is likely a violation of the US Constitution. Are they free persons? Yes. They get counted.

JSRG · Jan 31, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/07/nx-s1-5265650/new-census-trump-immigrants-counted

https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouri-ag-files-lawsuit-to-block-census-from-counting-undocumented-immigrants/

If Census counts have implications with regards to the number of house seats and thereby the number of electoral votes a state gets...
(which, someone is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they do)

...despite not being able to vote in federal elections, large undocumented populations can still end up giving prevailing party of the state their in an unfair advantage at the federal level.

Would it be a fair statement to suggest that with regards to sanctuary cities/states, there's a bit of a conflict of interest there if their undocumented populations (albeit, unable to vote) are helping their team get more seats and electoral votes?

I mean, it seems to me one can make the same claim for slaves. They couldn't vote, and one could say it created a conflict of interest as it meant the states that were importing slaves got more representation as a result. They were still counted towards the census (albeit at a 3/5 rate).

ThatRobGuy said:
Is there an opportunity for a "bargain" of sorts?

Where, if a state designates itself as a "sanctuary" or allows their individual cities to do so, ICE leaves them alone, but their undocumented population can't be factored in when it comes time to calculate house seats, electoral votes, or federal funding for various programs.

It seems to me such a bargain would require a constitutional amendment, as the portion that Tuur just quoted says it is determined by the number of persons, not the number of citizens.

Vambram · Jan 31, 2026

When the US Constitution was first written and ratified, I highly doubt that the founding fathers of the USA even had any thoughts at all about illegal immigration in their minds concerning Article 1, Section 2.

JSRG · Jan 31, 2026

Vambram said:
When the US Constitution was first written and ratified, I highly doubt that the founding fathers of the USA even had any thoughts at all about illegal immigration in their minds concerning Article 1, Section 2.

Sure, they likely didn't have thoughts about it, given illegal immigration didn't exist at that point, at least not on the federal level. And maybe if they had thought about it, or knew about it, they would have put in an exception for illegal immigrants so they don't count. But they didn't put in an exception. That's the key point. If someone thinks it's an oversight, okay. They can change the Constitution.

partinobodycular · Jan 31, 2026

Vambram said:
When the US Constitution was first written and ratified, I highly doubt that the founding fathers of the USA even had any thoughts at all about illegal immigration in their minds concerning Article 1, Section 2.

Well who did and didn't get counted was definitely on their minds, considering the Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787.

Vambram · Jan 31, 2026

JSRG said:
Sure, they likely didn't have thoughts about it, given illegal immigration didn't exist at that point, at least not on the federal level. And maybe if they had thought about it, or knew about it, they would have put in an exception for illegal immigrants so they don't count. But they didn't put in an exception. That's the key point. If someone thinks it's an oversight, okay. They can change the Constitution.

The very idea that millions of illegal immigrants should be counted in the USA census is mind boggling. Does anyone know of any other nation in all of the world in which such a dumb idea is put into practice?
The real reason that Democratic Party politicians LOVE illegal immigrants is because those millions of people ADD to the numbers of the census overwhelmingly so for the blue states run by the Democratic Party.

partinobodycular · Jan 31, 2026

Vambram said:
The very idea that millions of illegal immigrants should be counted in the USA census is mind boggling. Does anyone know of any other nation in all of the world in which such a dumb idea is put into practice?
The real reason that Democratic Party politicians LOVE illegal immigrants is because those millions of people ADD to the numbers of the census overwhelmingly so for the blue states run by the Democratic Party.

Considering the intelligence level of the legal voters I'm not really concerned about any ill effects from the illegal ones.

Vambram · Jan 31, 2026

partinobodycular said:
Considering the intelligence level of the legal voters I'm not really concerned about any ill effects from the illegal ones.

It would not surprise me that the reason you are not concerned with illegal immigrants is because the millions of them being counted in the census helps add to the electoral college and House of Representatives representation for the Democratic Party.

Arcangl86 · Jan 31, 2026

Vambram said:
The very idea that millions of illegal immigrants should be counted in the USA census is mind boggling.

Why exactly is it mindboggling? The Constitution is very clear that all persons are to be counted. They also use resources, and contribute to the tax base. That doesn't even take into account the practical piece of how exactly you would exclude them from the count.

Vambram said:
. Does anyone know of any other nation in all of the world in which such a dumb idea is put into practice?

There are plenty that count non-citizens, but I don't know if any exclude unauthorized immigrants from that number. I'm not sure it matters though since there are others things about the US that we are unique for.

Vambram said:
The real reason that Democratic Party politicians LOVE illegal immigrants is because those millions of people ADD to the numbers of the census overwhelmingly so for the blue states run by the Democratic Party.

If unauthorized immigrants were excluded from the census, three states would have lost a seat in the House at the last apportionment. Those three states are California, Texas and Florida. So one blue state and two red. Incidentally the states that would have picked up one of those seats are Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio. So once again, one blue state and two red states. So as far as political representation is concerned, it was sort of a wash.

Pommer · Jan 31, 2026

Vambram said:
When the US Constitution was first written and ratified, I highly doubt that the founding fathers of the USA even had any thoughts at all about illegal immigration in their minds concerning Article 1, Section 2.

When the Constitution was written and ratified, the founders were the ”illegal immigrants”; the nation didn’t even extend to where Ohio is now.

partinobodycular · Jan 31, 2026

Vambram said:
It would not surprise me that the reason you are not concerned with illegal immigrants is because the millions of them being counted in the census helps add to the electoral college and House of Representatives representation for the Democratic Party.

It may not surprise you, but you'd be wrong. I've never voted in my life. It just seems to me that we're talking about people, and this country was founded on the idea of no taxation without representation. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but they do pay taxes... right. So if you're not going to let them vote, at least count them so that hopefully someone else can vote in their stead. That seems like the very least that you can do. After all, even if they can't vote, convicted felons still get counted.

RileyG · Feb 1, 2026

Oompa Loompa said:
Illegal immigrants should be deported, not given the right to vote. I know, it sounds crazy...right?

I agree.

I do support those for asylum or refugees. They are different.

RileyG · Feb 1, 2026

Pommer said:
When the Constitution was written and ratified, the founders were the ”illegal immigrants”; the nation didn’t even extend to where Ohio is now.

I understand what you’re saying, BUT,

Our nation and rules have evolved over time.

Many of our founding fathers were slave owners. We don’t condone that, anymore.

RileyG · Feb 1, 2026

Vambram said:
When the US Constitution was first written and ratified, I highly doubt that the founding fathers of the USA even had any thoughts at all about illegal immigration in their minds concerning Article 1, Section 2.

See post 15.

A lot has changed over time.

I support LEGAL immigration and support people’s right to live where they want, just not ILLEGAL immigration.

I’m no expert, anyway.

Pommer · Feb 1, 2026

RileyG said:
I understand what you’re saying, BUT,

Our nation and rules have evolved over time.

Many of our founding fathers were slave owners. We don’t condone that, anymore.

We got better after we conquered the middle of the continent and wiped out most of the people who been already living there, yes.
How much better remains to be seen.

Vambram · Feb 1, 2026

RileyG said:
See post 15.

A lot has changed over time.

I support LEGAL immigration and support people’s right to live where they want, just not ILLEGAL immigration.

I’m no expert, anyway.

Do you support illegal immigrants being counted along with citizens in our national census?

Vambram · Feb 1, 2026

partinobodycular said:
It may not surprise you, but you'd be wrong. I've never voted in my life. It just seems to me that we're talking about people, and this country was founded on the idea of no taxation without representation. Now forgive me if I'm wrong but they do pay taxes... right. So if you're not going to let them vote, at least count them so that hopefully someone else can vote in their stead. That seems like the very least that you can do. After all, even if they can't vote, convicted felons still get counted.

Is there a part of the definition of ILLEGAL immigrants that you find difficult to understand? illegal immigrants have broken our laws and don't have the right to even be in our nation.

Tuur · Feb 1, 2026

Vambram said:
The very idea that millions of illegal immigrants should be counted in the USA census is mind boggling. Does anyone know of any other nation in all of the world in which such a dumb idea is put into practice?
The real reason that Democratic Party politicians LOVE illegal immigrants is because those millions of people ADD to the numbers of the census overwhelmingly so for the blue states run by the Democratic Party.

Be that as it may, the US Constitution says what it says. If we don't like what it says, we can ratify it.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Should people who are here illegally be counted in the census?

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Newbie

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Well-Known Member

Similar threads