Counting the Whole Number of Persons -- Trump doesn't want to obey Constitution

[hedrick]

Not unconstitutional at all. The founders would never have counted a person illegally in the country. You do not count a person with no standing and no right to be here. In fact if the law were followed instead of ignored they would be removed. Just because you refuse to follow the law does not mean the lawbreakers have a right to representation. As far as the unborn, they count once they are born, well if they are born and not murdered.

The current conservative justices say that when the wording is clear you don’t take into account intent. Furthermore, I don’t think we know that you’re right about intent. The wording is pretty clear. There’s some reason to think the the whole idea of making large numbers of immigrants illegal would have surprised them.

 

[Goonie]

The current conservative justices say that when the wording is clear you don’t take into account intent. Furthermore, I don’t think we know that you’re right about intent. The wording is pretty clear. There’s some reason to think the the whole idea of making large numbers of immigrants illegal would have surprised them.

Interesting, yet it is legal to exclude foreign tourists from the census, so why is it legal to count those in the US illegally who should be deported?

 

[Arc F1]

The text of the Constitution is clear about the Census:

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.

as is the superseding 14th 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.

And yet...

Trump signs order targeting undocumented immigrants in the US census

President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Tuesday that would exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted in congressional districts when district lines are redrawn next year.

The memorandum marks the Trump administration's latest effort to change the way US populations are counted and advance the President's immigration agenda. And like previous efforts, the issue will end up in court.

"I have accordingly determined that respect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base, to the extent feasible and to the maximum extent of the President's discretion under the law," the order states.

Even though no citizenship question is on this year's census, advocates worried lingering fears over the question would deter immigrants from responding and lead to shortfalls in funding for schools, roads and other community projects.

In addition, Geltzer said, the census doesn't currently ask whether someone immigrated illegally to the United States. "Presumably the Trump administration will have to rely on a hodgepodge of other records to guess the population they intend to use for apportionment."

--

Trump's move is obviously unconstitutional. The people around him probably know it. Like his earlier failed attempt to add a citizenship question to the census, the intent is to scare people into not filling out the census.

Why worry about the constitution? We don't even enforce the laws that we have. If we did counting Illegals wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[Arc F1]

Read the document:

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.

We did away with the "three fifths of all other persons" bit.

Now answer the simple question. Does it say citizens or does it say persons?

Maybe Illegals should start paying taxes.

 

[Goonie]

Maybe Illegals should start paying taxes.

Many do.

 

[FenderTL5]

The current conservative justices say that when the wording is clear you don’t take into account intent. Furthermore, I don’t think we know that you’re right about intent. The wording is pretty clear. There’s some reason to think the the whole idea of making large numbers of immigrants illegal would have surprised them.

{mind wandering kinda' thought} just when did we have US citizens? Were there any US citizens at the time the Constitution was written? When did those mostly immigrants become citizens, ever?

 

[FenderTL5]

Maybe Illegals should start paying taxes.

Most do in some form or another, especially local/sales taxes or are you only referencing income/payroll taxes?

 

[Arc F1]

Many do.

I've been around thousands and thousands of Illegals and I've yet to see any pay taxes. I've been watching this problem in construction for many years. The company pays one man who is on the payroll and he then hands cash to the Illegals. I'm sure there are a few with stolen SS numbers.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe Illegals should start paying taxes.

The irony: How Fortune 500 Companies Avoid Paying Income Tax

 

[Arc F1]

Most do in some form or another, especially local/sales taxes or are you only referencing income/payroll taxes?

It starts with payroll and income. We shouldn't reward those with no respect for our laws. That includes those hiring them.

 

[Arc F1]

The irony: How Fortune 500 Companies Avoid Paying Income Tax

I'm not against cracking down on the big guys. Two wrongs are still wrong.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I've been around thousands and thousands of Illegals and I've yet to see any pay taxes. I've been watching this problem in construction for many years. The company pays one man who is on the payroll and he then hands cash to the Illegals. I'm sure there are a few with stolen SS numbers.

That one guy on the payroll has to pay taxes on all of that unless he wants to go to jail. He can't just write off as a business deduction the cash he hands out. Heck, if anything, this sort of scheme could likely result in more taxes being paid than if they'd done it the right way since, for the pay of, say 5 workers, you're only deducting one personal exemption, not qualifying for any means-tested credits (e.g. EITC) and paying a higher federal income tax rate on some of it.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not against cracking down on the big guys. Two wrongs are still wrong.

Fair enough.

 

[hedrick]

It's always dangerous for me to predict what the Supreme Court will do. But I just read the decision where they rejected adding a question about citizenship to the census. One of the issues they looked at was standing. States argued that if immigrants didn't respond the might lose Congressional representation. The whole discussion of that by the Court presumes that representation is based on the whole population.

They didn't specifically rule on that issue, because it wasn't germane to the question. Rather, they found that the Administration's stated reason for adding the question was a pretext, i.e. that it wasn't the actual reason they wanted to do it.

However it seems clear that if it comes to them (and it probably will) they will find that the Constitution requires all persons living in the country to be counted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

{mind wandering kinda' thought} just when did we have US citizens? Were there any US citizens at the time the Constitution was written? When did those mostly immigrants become citizens, ever?

I think it wasn't explicitly stated, but by common law anyone residing in the US at the time of ratification was automatically a citizen. And then the question was first settled by...

The Naturalization Act of 1790
The first Congress spent most of its time figuring out the nation's finances, through both taxation and public debt. It did, however, take a moment to define citizenship for those entering after the ratification of the Constitution. It also gave citizen status to those born overseas -- to a father who was a citizen

 

[Arc F1]

That one guy on the payroll has to pay taxes on all of that unless he wants to go to jail. He can't just write off as a business deduction the cash he hands out. Heck, if anything, this sort of scheme could likely result in more taxes being paid than if they'd done it the right way since, for the pay of, say 5 workers, you're only deducting one personal exemption, not qualifying for any means-tested credits (e.g. EITC) and paying a higher federal income tax rate on some of it.

It's cutting good people out of a decent wage. They are paying Illegals an average of 200 a week instead of paying hard working citizens a 1000 a week. We either believe in a fair wage and good standard of living or we don't.

 

[hedrick]

{mind wandering kinda' thought} just when did we have US citizens? Were there any US citizens at the time the Constitution was written? When did those mostly immigrants become citizens, ever?

Yes, the distinction did exist, and there were discussions about it. The Founding Fathers Favored a Liberal Immigration System

What's not so clear is whether the concept of an illegal immigrant existed then. Here's a brief discussion: Early American Immigration Policies. It appears that regulation of immigration started in the late 19th Cent, and was discriminatory from the start.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's cutting good people out of a decent wage. They are paying Illegals an average of 200 a week instead of paying hard working citizens a 1000 a week. We either believe in a fair wage and good standard of living or we don't.

I'm not arguing that there aren't problems with the situation - there obviously are. The point was about whether or not they pay taxes. In the situation you describe, they do - possibly at a higher rate than they would if everything was above board.

 

[durangodawood]

A president should respect the constitution when it suits him.

In this case the constitution clearly doesnt suit him.

 

[Arc F1]

I'm not arguing that there aren't problems with the situation - there obviously are. The point was about whether or not they pay taxes. In the situation you describe, they do - possibly at a higher rate than they would if everything was above board.

"they" don't pay anything. They are breaking laws and are being rewarded for it. The employers are also avoiding paying a living wage which intern would amount to higher taxes. Everyone should Spend some time around the Illegals and see how much they actually care about this country.