Federal Court blocks Trump order to exclude undocumented immigrants from census count

I concur with the court, they did the right thing. The census count is not about citizenship, it's about population.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...2bdcce-f3a0-11ea-bc45-e5d48ab44b9f_story.html

A federal court on Thursday blocked a memorandum signed by President Trump seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted in the census for apportionment, saying such action would violate the statute governing congressional apportionment.

A special three-judge panel out of New York wrote that the president’s argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted runs afoul of a statute saying apportionment must be based on everyone who is a resident of the United States.

The ruling declared the president’s July 21 memorandum to be “an unlawful exercise of the authority granted to the President,”

 

It won’t be long before some people, who claim to respect the constitution, come along to criticise the court for having prevented trump from overstepping his constitutional power.

 

Citizenship is an open question when it comes to the census, but residency is valid. Problem with the judge's ruling is residency means much more than just being in the locale. For instance visitors from a foreign country on a lengthy vacation should not be counted to determine how many representatives a state should have in congress. Neither should illegal aliens. This is entirely under the president's jurisdiction. The judge is doing what activist judges do, ignore the law and reason and just rule on your beliefs.

 

EVERY president pushes the limits of their authority, as does EVERY congress, why the courts exist, nothing new here.

 

Once again, liberal judges encourage mass lawbreaking to the detriment of America.

And to those mental midgets who would run and tie this to Trump, this has gone on for decades, orchestrated by liberals that purposely install judges friendly to their views in power.

 

The law and precedent has been clearly established long before President Trump, who is violating it. Sorry, you are wrong:

for more info, see: https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/congressional-apportionment/about/faqs.html#Q2

And,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

If you believe undocs are to be excluded, in law and/or precedent, please provide the citation, court ruling, etc. Thank you.

 

Why would the anyone believe that the law should overlook illegal residents? The law is premised on the idea that folks being counted are lawfully residing there. Transferring the descriptor from illegal to "undocumented" is a contrivance. Undocumented describes folks who don't have SSNs assigned to them, but are still citizens or legal residents, not illegal immigrants. Democrats like the idea that "undocumented" might overcome the necessary "legal" assumption the law was intended to protect.

So, the question is why? The answer is simple. Democrats assume that counting said illegals will magic them some more districts to represent and disenfranchise voters elsewhere. When democrats disenfranchise citizens for their own power, it really does put this conversation in the right focus. Democrats imagine all kinds of latitude in interpreting law for their own benefit. It's what they do. This decision won't stand, and democrats will rightfully be thwarted again.

 

Another federal court decision destined to be overturned by SCOTUS.

 

Neither the Constitution nor census laws and regulations say one word about illegal aliens. In fact when the constitution was written there was no such thing as illegal immigrants. I guess "overstepping constitutional powers" is just something listed in the playbook of memes to be shouted out at random.

 

The laws and regulations don't say one word about illegal immigrants, and IIRC it has never before been adjudicated. (Not to mention that faulty court rulings that can be cited are a dime a dozen, but that's another story.) With a stretch it can be seen that the judge could have come up with his decision with a logical interpretation of the census laws and regulations. But it is contrary to any common sense because the fundamental basis behind the entire census rules are people, domestic or foreign, residing legally in the United States. (The only exceptions are military and government workers stationed overseas who are nonetheless counted.) To get representatives in congress based in part on illegal residency violates all sense and degree of rationality.

 

The two highlighted statements contradict each other.

So, the essence of your argument is 'common sense'? Nothing about law, nothing about precedence, etc., nuts to all of that, this is about what YOU THINK constitutes 'common sense', eh? Because what is common sense to a judge, which is based on years of training, knowledge of law and that of precedent, might not square with what you think it is, and so you are going to refute all that on your premise that his ruling is not in accordance to what you believe constitutes 'common sense'?

That's a very thin argument.

In fact, the only thing that seems to be the basis for your argument is that you just don't like it, and you don't want undocumented persons counted in the census.

Actually, your point of view lacks common sense, and if you really want some common sense, go here:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...itizenship-question-to-count-the-undocumented

 

Its such a joke to count illegal residents for this purpose. Because of the fact that they are illegal residents, at any moment they could be removed thus resulting in disproportionate representation for the area they were counted in. Its just dumb and if it didn't overwhelmingly benefit Democrats this wouldn't have been struck down.

 

Yup.

 

No, they don't.

Following the underlying precept of a law is rationally common sense even if that precept is not explicitly stated. The primary fundamental foundation for our system of governance as evidenced by the Constitution is the separation of powers doctrine. This has been cited and used thousands of times in court cases. Yet the words "separation of powers" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

I never said undocumented persons should not be counted. I said illegal aliens should not be counted. Despite the left's and Democrats' attempt to conflate the two for political advantage, they are not the same thing.

Your link is a feigned strawman. It talks about citizenship, not illegal immigrants. One does not have to be a citizen to be legally and properly counted in the census. Only domiciled legal residency is required.

 

Mass illegal immigration wasn’t a concern with the census until the last couple decades in certain areas. But the thing is NOT including illegals forces local govt to crack down on the problem because they become over burdened by ignoring the problem. Why should cities with major illegal issues receive more funding and control for BREAKING THE LAW!!!???

The biggest issue is illegals influencing federal control and THAT IS DANGEROUS!!! Our country should not being influenced by NON citizens. They should have zero control.

 

But it has been explicitly stated, see highlighted items, below.

Strawman arguments are not 'feigned', given that strawman arguments are inherently done unwittingly, so how could they be 'feigned' ? -- so that's a rather absurd adjective used in that sense.

Perhaps you are feigning eloquence.

Your notion of 'common sense' doesn't square with the fact that the 14th Amendment specifies that congressional representatives be apportioned according to “the whole number of persons in each state” , noting that the Supreme Court has held unanimously, that provision requires the census to take account of each state’s “total population” and include “all inhabitants.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf

No mention of 'domiciled legal residency' only 'all inhabitants' and 'total population' (which is specific language) and many citations in the above linked document refer to this language. Common sense dictates 'all' is inclusive of unauthorized inhabitants, however such unauthorization manifests. Had it meant 'domiciled legal residency', common sense dictates that language would be in SCOTUS rulings, but no, only 'total' and "all'.

So, please refrain from imposing what you think 'common sense' means and let's just go with SCOTUS, as they, not you, nor I, nor anyone else, are the arbiters of what is, and what is not, constitutional

 

The Supreme Court has ruled on this many times, and they have ruled against your point of view. Citizenship is not the basis for Congressional apportionment, period. End of argument.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf

 

An undocumented immigrant is NOT a resident. Yes,yes the Court ordained otherwise but our common sense speaks differently. The Court system says whatever it wants to say.

 

That’s fine. Doesn’t mean they’re correct. Illegals shouldn’t have representation. Their lives should be miserable enough so they self deport if we can’t round them up first.

 

What do you think of Glen Beck's plan to grow America's population to 1 billion through immigration in order to counter the Chinese?
https://twitter.com/glennbeck/status/1307472038123073536

 

Beck is usually quite good, but here he suffered from a brain fart.

 

That’s patently absurd. The census is responsible for determining how many Representatives a state receives and as such how many VOTES it gets. The idea that a state full of illegals gets MORE votes because they have more people who are not citizens is grossly corrupt as it incentivizes states and their representatives to pass legislation and support legislation in Congress bringing in MORE illegals to their states so that they can get more votes.

 

Lol...like the cons want the scotus to do, so they try to pack it with right wing ideologues.

 

Voting districts and their representation are determined through a residency count of 10 years. Sorry, but no one is going on a 10 year long vacation. Furthermore, these requirements are constitutional, meaning it is not within the jurisdiction of the president to unilaterally change it

 

Exactly. How Leftists and Dems can dishonestly smile away while thinking people can’t see this, is mind boggling.