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

You will note a failure to trim on my part. This is due to typing with a large cat in my lap.

Tuur said:

Yes. So why say that the Constitution doesn't make a distinction between naturalized citizens and illegals? Since the clause doesn't address citizenship, why bring up that the Constitution makes no distinction between naturalized and illegal? It only makes a distinction between free, slave, and Indians not taxed Slavery is gone and Indians are US citizens, so everyone gets counted. That's the only relevant thing.

Click to expand...

Because you seem to be confusing the natural born citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment with the Census Clause by using terms from both in the same sentence.

Tuur said:

Wow. I thought the US Constitution was a credible source. Who knew?

Here's the pertinent text again:



If it was a matter of being governed by most of the same laws, by that argument an American who goes to another country has become a citizen of that country by being subject to most of the same laws as the locals. IF that argument held true, then the term "naturalized" would not be needed. For that matter, the aspect of being born in the US wouldn't be mentioned at all; it could be pared to "All persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Click to expand...

The problem is that you can read the words, but do not comprehend the meaning. This is either because you are doing the analysis yourself (not a good idea with legal documents) or are reading bad sources.

Tuur said:

Note that in time of war, non-naturalized citizens of the country that the US has come to blows with are usually repatriated. That was the case in WWII, which occurred, oh, over 75 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. George Dasch was a repatriated German made part of a sabotage team, and blew the whistle the moment he came back to the US. Despite blowing the whistle, he ended up doing time until granted clemency by Truman after WWII. Had following US laws made him a US citizen, he would have been charged with treason.

Click to expand...

The number of Germans detained under "enemy alien" law was very small compared to the number (1.2 M) of German-born persons in the US (including one of my G. grandmothers and a step g. grandmother) during WW2. I don't have information about how many were not naturalized, but it was certainly much larger than the number who were detained.

Tuur said:

Also note that the Harry formally known as prince could apply for naturalization, courtesy of being married to an American and residing here for over three years. He has not done so, and isn't a US citizen despite living under US law.

Click to expand...

Unlike everyone else you mentioned Harry (who is still called prince you've confused him with his Epstein-pal uncle, Randy Andy, though as a republican, I do not recognize such titles) may not be fully subject to US law as a "royal".

Tuur said:

By this argument, when an American travels abroad, they are no longer US citizens since they are subject to the laws of the country they visit.

Click to expand...

No. "Subject to the law" refers to various civil and criminal laws applying to them. If you travel to Canada and rob a bank, you are subject to Canadian bank robbery laws, just as a Canadian doing the same in the US would be subject to US (or State) bank robbery laws. The ones who aren't subject to such laws are those like diplomats with diplomatic immunity.

ThatRobGuy said:

I mentioned the flip-side of that scenario, which is if the rep-to-citizen ratio was 30,000 to 1 instead, there's be so many reps (and so many with single-threaded myopic agendas), that virtually no bill would ever get passed again.

There literally wouldn't be enough time in the day to craft that many compromises and "deals" to get something passed.


The example I used was getting a group of people to compromise on a restaurant to go to for dinner.

If you have a group of 3-4, that process is easier than if you're trying to do it with a group of 12.

Having a higher citizen-to-rep ratio forces the element of compromise earlier in the process, rather than waiting until they're all in, and then having to find a way to compromise and make concessions to 1200 other special interests once they're there.

Click to expand...

There are several problems with this argument. First, it is offered without actual evidence--one would need to show a real correlation between difficulty in passing bills and size of legislature, which you didn't offer any outside of this hypothetical about restaurants.

There are several problems why this analogy doesn't work. If you have 3-4 people versus 12, normally the agreement is you want to get something that will choose everyone or at least almost everyone. Achieving unanimity with 12 is harder than 3 or 4. But you don't need unanimity to pass a law. You just need a majority (or 60% in the case of the Senate thanks to the filibuster, but still not unanimity).

The other problem is that it incorrectly assumes that the increase in people will actually be completely different viewpoints. If you have 3 people and 1 person wants pizza, 1 person wants burgers, and 1 person wants Chinese, then that's functionally the same as if you have 3 people who want pizza, 3 people who want burgers, and 3 people who want Chinese. And an increase in size of congress is in all likelihood just going to do that, give you the same percentage of viewpoints, which is what matters.

Because we need to remember that the House of Representatives isn't really 425 different viewpoints. It's rather divided up into several "groups" whose members have pretty similar viewpoints. You don't need to win over 213 different viewpoints to pass a law, you just need to win over enough of the groups.

As I recall--I cannot remember exactly where this was, I think it was one of the Federalist Papers--James Madison made an argument as to why the federal government couldn't possibly be harming people's liberty, which was that the country was so big with so many different states that you'd end up with so many different viewpoints that it would be really hard to get them to agree on things, which would mean it'd be really hard for people to gang up on the minority. That prediction was quickly shown to be false, as the representatives quickly coalesced into just two major factions, the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists (later replaced with Democrats and Whigs, with the latter later replaced with Republicans) and whichever of those two factions had the majority was the one who ran things.

Sure, there are some factions within those factions. You have some really liberal Democrats and some more moderate ones, as well as far-right Republicans and more moderate ones. But even with that, in the end you have just several different factions in congress, each with a bunch of different people. Increasing the size of congress would just put more people into each of those factions and end up with the same basic situation we have now.

Also, as the link I previously offered noted:

Many other questions are along similar logistical lines: how would voting work? Would they use clickers? What if the clickers break? How could C-SPAN get the cameras in? Wouldn’t a large House end up more under the sway of leadership than ever? It’s like nobody’s ever seen a parliament of a few thousand people!

In fact, we know how to run a legislative body consisting of several thousand people, because Americans do just that all the time. I’ve even participated in one!

The 2014 Minnesota Republican Party state convention had 2,020 voting delegates at its opening. I was an alternate, but ended up serving as a voting delegate. It was a pretty thrilling day! The GOP senate endorsement was closely fought, and we went to ten ballots over two days. (I had to drop out after the first night.) We followed Robert’s Rules of Order, which work just fine for huge crowds, with standard convention rules. We cast paper ballots and handed them to trusted ballot-counting teams. The House floor “debates” you see on C-SPAN are mostly on-camera onanism to an audience of six or seven people, but, at the MNGOP convention, we fiercely debated the merits of each candidate among ourselves—not so much on mic, but person to person. The candidates courted us. Their surrogates courted us. Candidate teams were back in their offices just off-site, printing up supportive flyers and (as the losing candidates grew desperate) nasty slanders for rapid distribution on the floor.

It was a blast. In the end, the body reached a collective decision. Our candidate was not my first choice, but he was far from my last. Similar conventions happen everywhere in the country, year in and year out, for both parties, without major drama or disaster. The House can run just as smoothly! This is what a republic looks like!

In the House today, the vast majority of the work doesn’t even take place in floor deliberations, anyway. The real work is done in committee chambers and drafting rooms, late-night text chains and face-to-face meetings. Individual members voluntarily band together in “caucuses” to exercise collective power. None of that changes with 11,000 people on the job. What you get instead is more popular representatives overseeing the bureaucracy (especially executive abuses), more Congressmen actually reading the legislation placed before them, more people getting assigned to committees where they actually know what they’re talking about. (Call me crazy, but maybe we should have a few artists on the intellectual property committee and people who don’t call the Internet a “series of tubes” on the Internet committee? 11,000 representatives gives you a very broad range of applicants!)

Indeed, since, today, being a Congressman is only a part-time job—the full-time job is fundraising—a huge amount of the actual work today has to be done by unelected staffers while the Representatives are off in the telemarketing cubicles. In fact, the U.S. House of Representatives currently employs 9,034 staffers, whose median pay falls between $50,000 and $175,000. The average Congressman has 29 staffers.

I’m sure those staffers are all working very hard. But remember my mayor? He gets by with a single clerk. Whom he shares. With the entire city council. Plus the city manager. And the city staff. (She’s great.)

If we expanded the House to 11,000 members, we would not need twenty-five times as much House staff. We would actually need far less House staff. The people we elected to do the work could actually do the work. So next time somebody tells ya, “The last thing Washington needs is more politicians!” remind them that Washington already has “all these politicians.” They just aren’t elected.

Tuur said:

Yes. So why say that the Constitution doesn't make a distinction between naturalized citizens and illegals? Since the clause doesn't address citizenship, why bring up that the Constitution makes no distinction between naturalized and illegal? It only makes a distinction between free, slave, and Indians not taxed Slavery is gone and Indians are US citizens, so everyone gets counted. That's the only relevant thing.

Wow. I thought the US Constitution was a credible source. Who knew?

Here's the pertinent text again:



If it was a matter of being governed by most of the same laws, by that argument an American who goes to another country has become a citizen of that country by being subject to most of the same laws as the locals. IF that argument held true, then the term "naturalized" would not be needed. For that matter, the aspect of being born in the US wouldn't be mentioned at all; it could be pared to "All persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Note that in time of war, non-naturalized citizens of the country that the US has come to blows with are usually repatriated. That was the case in WWII, which occurred, oh, over 75 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. George Dasch was a repatriated German made part of a sabotage team, and blew the whistle the moment he came back to the US. Despite blowing the whistle, he ended up doing time until granted clemency by Truman after WWII. Had following US laws made him a US citizen, he would have been charged with treason.

Also note that the Harry formally known as prince could apply for naturalization, courtesy of being married to an American and residing here for over three years. He has not done so, and isn't a US citizen despite living under US law.






By this argument, when an American travels abroad, they are no longer US citizens since they are subject to the laws of the country they visit.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Because you seem to be confusing the natural born citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment with the Census Clause by using terms from both in the same sentence.

The problem is that you can read the words, but do not comprehend the meaning. This is either because you are doing the analysis yourself (not a good idea with legal documents) or are reading bad sources.

The number of Germans detained under "enemy alien" law was very small compared to the number (1.2 M) of German-born persons in the US (including one of my G. grandmothers and a step g. grandmother) during WW2. I don't have information about how many were not naturalized, but it was certainly much larger than the number who were detained.

Unlike everyone else you mentioned Harry (who is still called prince you've confused him with his Epstein-pal uncle, Randy Andy, though as a republican, I do not recognize such titles) may not be fully subject to US law as a "royal".

No. "Subject to the law" refers to various civil and criminal laws applying to them. If you travel to Canada and rob a bank, you are subject to Canadian bank robbery laws, just as a Canadian doing the same in the US would be subject to US (or State) bank robbery laws. The ones who aren't subject to such laws are those like diplomats with diplomatic immunity.

Click to expand...

Reading through your posts, I am not even sure if you two are actually in disagreement on this matter, and may be actually arguing in favor of the same thing, but end up arguing due to miscommunications. Because from what I can tell--and either of you are free to correct me if I am wrong--I believe both of you actually seem to be in agreement that the Constitution requires illegal immigrants to be counted in the census. Am I incorrect on that? If I am, then by all means go back to your arguing--but it looked to me like that was the position both of you have expressed.

@Tuur,
First, I must say that some of the preceding posts have been quite informative. However I do have one issue with your posts in particular, and it pertains to the following:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing those who are U.S. citizens with those who are to be counted in the census. I'm bewildered as to why you keep making this mistake.

Is there a logical reason for why you keep doing this?

I should have posted this earlier, but I couldn't find the article in question I link to in this post, but I finally found it, so here goes.

One of the arguments raised in claiming the Constitution doesn't require the counting of illegal immigrants in the census is that they didn't have a concept of illegal immigration. As I have noted before, that doesn't matter--what matters is what they put into the Constitution itself. And the word it uses, "persons", clearly applies to all humans. Even if they didn't know about it, that wouldn't change what they actually put in the Constitution.

However, the idea that there was no concept of illegal immigration at the time of the writing of the Constitution is simply false. There are two reasons for this.

The first is the Constitution itself. It declares:

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

This says that the US government can't prohibit states from allowing people in until 1808. Now, the purpose of this clause was to prevent the federal government from banning the importation of slave to the country until 1808 (it should be noted that as soon as this elapsed, they did ban it). However, it is worded widely enough that it applies to all importation. So clearly, they had a concept of illegal immigration, because they put something in the Constitution saying that the federal government couldn't make immigration illegal over the wishes of a state until 1808. If the Constitution explicitly prohibits something, obviously it's because they were aware of the thing that was being prohibited.

Now, one counter to this might be to say it doesn't count, because the slaves weren't willing immigrants. I would say this doesn't change the base point, but even if we were to accept that, we come to the fact that there was in fact restriction on willing, non-slave immigration also. Not by the federal government, but by the states.

This useful article goes into it:

This lists various examples of state laws restricting immigration prior to 1875 or indeed even prior to the Constitution itself. As it notes on page 1842 (page 10 of the article itself):

"Georgia enacted a statute in 1787 directing that felons transported or banished from another state or a foreign country be arrested and removed beyond the limits of the state, not to return on penalty of death. More importantly, the Congress of the Confederation adopted a resolution in September 1788, recommending that the states "pass proper laws for preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the United States. Within a year, several states responded to the Congress' call, although by varying modes of implementation."

There are more examples, but this is sufficient to prove the point. The idea that people had no conception of illegal immigration at the time of the writing or ratification of the Constitution is false, on the basis that... well, there was illegal immigration! Yes, the immigration restrictions were done by states, and they were a lot less restrictive than modern laws, but the concept of illegal immigration existed on the simple basis that illegal immigration itself existed. So an argument whose basis is the claim that they weren't aware of illegal immigration at the time of the Constitution being written or ratified is refuted by the fact... well, they did know about it, because it was on the books.

ThatRobGuy said:

So basically, what would stop a crafty state from welcoming in as many illegal aliens as they can, changing their state/local laws to insulate them from deportation, and then unfairly reap the benefits of additional electoral votes, congressional seats, and cuts of federal funding?

Click to expand...

US Federal law and US Federal control of borders and immigration.

Primarily the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952/1965) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (1996).

Clauses from the Immigration Act (1990) and the Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) are also relevant.

Under the US Criminal Code it's codified in Title 8, Chapter 12, sub-chapter IV.

JSRG said:

Reading through your posts, I am not even sure if you two are actually in disagreement on this matter, and may be actually arguing in favor of the same thing, but end up arguing due to miscommunications. Because from what I can tell--and either of you are free to correct me if I am wrong--I believe both of you actually seem to be in agreement that the Constitution requires illegal immigrants to be counted in the census. Am I incorrect on that? If I am, then by all means go back to your arguing--but it looked to me like that was the position both of you have expressed.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the size of it. I've made it about as clear as I could, by citing the Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution, by posting the text. You can't get clearer than that. There's not even wiggle-room in the wording,

That's why statements like, oh, the constitution doesn't divide immigrants into legal and illegal are meaningless. Article 1, Section 2, specifies the full count of free persons. It makes no direct comment about citizenship. Frankly, there's no reason to bring citizenship up at all, unless it's for a proposed amendment. When I see that, I strongly suspect someone is setting up another argument.

The 14th Amendment addresses the question of citizenship, particularly birth citizenship, which meant that emancipated slaves were indeed citizens. It's interesting that it specifically mentions birth citizenship OR naturalization AND subject to the jurisdiction. History of it's application since 1865 shows that those not born here and not naturalized and who are subject to the jurisdiction of another country are not citizens, and there's ample examples of the latter outside of the diplomatic corp.

Let's make the following bold and all caps so it won't be missed:

THE DEFINITION OF US CITIZENSHIP DOESN"T ENTER IN TO THE CENSUS SINCE ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 DOESN'T RESTRICT THE COUNT TO CITIZENS.

Odds are, even that statement will not be sufficient.

partinobodycular said:

You seem to be confusing those who are U.S. citizens with those who are to be counted in the census. I'm bewildered as to why you keep making this mistake.

Is there a logical reason for why you keep doing this?

Click to expand...

Because Hans Blaster made the statement that the US Constitution doesn't define legal and illegal immigrants,. Since Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution doesn't restrict the census to citizens, that's a meaningless statement where the census is concerned. If, however, the ultimate argument is that there are no illegal aliens as this is not defined by the US Constitution, that's an expected starting point. Best to point out that the 14th Amendment recognizes a difference between those born here and naturalized citizens, and those who are subject to the jurisdiction of another government.

Odd that this seems to be a contentious point..,

Maria Billingsley said:

I just want to make you aware that the census is essentially the paperwork that proves our communities actually exist to the people in charge of the money, the Federal government.
This data is the green light for the big projects you see every day, like widening those bottlenecked highways, fixing dangerous bridges, and upgrading public transit so people aren't stuck in gridlock. It’s also the master plan for where the next schools and fire stations get built as well as medical coverage. If a state does not count everyone, it’s basically leaving money on the table that rightfully belongs to the people living there.

Click to expand...

It also determines how many representatives are sent to Washington. Which is why many liberals are so invested in supporting illegal immigration.

Postvieww said:

It also determines how many representatives are sent to Washington. Which is why many liberals are so invested in supporting illegal immigration.

Click to expand...

Except the theory is incorrect. California lost one seat and Texas gained two in the 2020 census.

Tuur said:

Which means saying the US Constitution makes no distinction between a legal or illegal immigrant is meaningless. Why bring that up at all in regard to the census? It seems more like an attempt to argue all immigration laws are unconstitutional, despite the existence of the Naturalization Clause

Click to expand...

No, immigration laws are constitutional even if they did not exist at the time the Constitution was ratified.

Tuur said:

Ah, no. Someone not born here and who has not renounced allegiance to the country they left is still subject to the jurisdiction of that country. That includes being drafted, if their country can get their hands on them, and that has happened on occasion.

Click to expand...

While citizens of other countries are subject to their own country's laws, while they are here, they are subject to US laws with the noted exception of diplomats, etc., just as Americans are also subject to the laws of countries we visit.

Tuur said:

Simply coming to the US did not, and does not, make them citizens.

Click to expand...

No one has made that claim, but how did a person become a citizen in 1798?

Tuur said:

To become citizens of the US, they have to be naturalized, per the laws set forth by congress. Regardless of the intent of "subject to US jurisdiction," it still comes into play. Unless they are born here or naturalized, they are not US citizens.

Click to expand...

Subject to the US jurisdiction only means that they must obey the laws here or be subject to arrest, etc. Diplomats are not required to obey the laws here and cannot be legally prosecuted (even concerning rape and murder); American diplomats get reciprocal grace. Ordinary citizens are subject to the laws of countries they visit or reside in whether they are there legally or not.

Look up international law and diplomacy. There is a gap in your knowledge here. I realize you are not likely to take my word for it (why should you?) so look it up yourself in an authoritative place of your choosing - a law library or website such as Cornell might be suitable.

ThatRobGuy said:

So is it even the slightest bit possible

Click to expand...

That's some dishonest framing there.

ThatRobGuy said:

So is it even the slightest bit possible that Democrats have a vested interest in trying to prevent as many deportations as possible during this admin, in hopes that they'll get one of their peeps in starting in 2029 that can help them preserve their headcount?

Click to expand...

I don't see how the Democrats profit more by having illegal immigrants since blue states generally have fewer. As I said before, if they really wanted to gin up their representation, they only need to get the numbers surged during the census count - before and after, the numbers are not helpful in any way.

Tuur said:

If, however, the ultimate argument is that there are no illegal aliens as this is not defined by the US Constitution, that's an expected starting point.

Click to expand...

It isn't. It would be a very silly argument (or delusional) to claim and attempt to support that there are no persons in the US today that are not authorized to be here. (Foreign born without proper visas or resident alien statuses.)

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?


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.

Click to expand...

I would ask you to comment on the "Worst of the worst" ~Tom Homan. Do we allow them to stay? and How do you keep them from leaving that Sanctuary city / State and migrating elsewhere in the USA say to sex traffic or smuggle drugs (Fentanyl)? Once they sneak across the state line how do you catch them and what resources to the Tax payers have to pay for to do such an operation? Maybe they the Sanctuary State /city can build a wall to keep them in say with Barbed/ Razor wire much like that movie Escape from New York with Kurt Russell. Also lets consider pulling all and any federal monies especially tax dollars from going to that State / city. Lots to consider in what you are preposing sir.

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?


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.

Click to expand...

Since this is a Christian forum and since we all worship the Same God I would hope I would like to remind everyone who places men in places of power.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

These verses establish that all authority originates from God (Romans 13), who looks at the heart of individuals for leadership (1 Samuel 16), and ultimately controls the rise and fall of rulers (Daniel 2).

This includes Obama, Biden & Trump.

Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

1 Samuel 16:7: "But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart."

Daniel 2:21: "And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding."

Deuteronomy 17:15: "...Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not put a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."