Serious question -- what do Trump supporters think the citizenship question was supposed to DO?

It's also a fact.

Why wouldn't it be?

And don't bother me with any links unless you include a reason to click on the sonsabitches.

To be sure; but it behooves us to read the sequent proviso (later rendered moot by 15A) which roughly parallels the 3/5 clause by reducing state representation according to the proportion of adult male citizens (other than criminals) denied suffrage by the state.

 

Can you point that out for me?

 

I don't think so. You already quoted §2, which has two sentences, the second of which is a longass sonofabitch that you just kinda have to untangle.

 

Yeah, I think that's in the voting section. I was pointing to the people section for representation.
But your right about the long assed sentence.

 

You are reading far more in to the 14th then there is

First it's the 14th, then it the 14th section 2. THEN you completely ignore the mention of CITIZENS. And then insult me by insinuating I'm dyslectic. Cant you leftist carry on a civil conversation with out trolling and using insults?

 

There are two sentences. 1 deals with representation, the second with voting.

 

I've provided the only sources that count. The US constitution, and the government archives that outline the allocation method. Try reading what you've been provided.

 

Wow! That is an eye opener. It seems as if just ought to be the Trump admin who's filing lawsuits over the census and subsequent apportionment

 

Well, between this, your inability to find a source, and the fact that slaves, who weren't citizens, were also originally counted, looks like it has always been the case that non-citizens have been counted and I was right about "people" not meaning citizens only. The Trump admin would have no leg to stand on. You want only citizens to count for appropriation? You'll need to change the Constitution. For that you'll need an amendment, not a lawsuit.

 

I have been warning of this for over 5 years on this forum, to mostly glazed eyes. I have sent letters, unanswered, to my representatives about it. Now they are talking about rounding up and deporting "millions" of illegal aliens to try to fix it. Ridiculous. Too little, too late.

Democrats have successfully gamed the system, at the cost of untold lives, to gain unfair representation in the electoral college and the house of representatives. People were amazed at the picture of every democrat on the debate stage raising their hand to give illegal aliens free healthcare. That was nothing but another carrot to lure more floods of these unfortunate people to risk, and lose, their lives to illegally cross the border. This is disgusting to me.

 

No I think a lawsuit will do nicely. The constitution is clear, and the error is in the way that apportionments are calculated. Non citizens must be excluded because the constitution makes has no provision for foreign nationals legally participating in elections. I've just fired off a slew of emails to citizens action groups, and a pledge to donate to any legal fund established to file a federal suit. I wish we'd have had this discussion months ago.

 

The "fix" seems a lot simpler. Raw population numbers being used to allocate EC delegates is clearly unconstitutional. If you can't legally participate in a presidential election, how can your proxy EC delegate?

 

I agree 100%. It may take a Constitutional challenge to the results of the apportionment, when it happens, in 2021. It would have been better to have dealt with it back when it became apparent what the democrats game was. The citizenship question on the census will become key to that challenge.

 

I'm just amazed that the Trump admin. is fighting to include the citizenship question, when non citizens aren't disqualified in apportioning House reps and EC delegates. GOP "messaging" really needs to hammer down on the possibility that the next POTUS might be chosen by non voting, non citizens by virtue of a gerrymandered EC.

 

"Regardless of which lawyers handle the case, they will need to overcome the ample evidence that the true purpose of adding the question is to give Republicans a structural advantage going forward. “You need it for Congress for districting,” Trump himself said recently, a reference to the idea that the point of the Census changes would be to conduct redistricting based on citizens instead of total persons—a change to the current way House districts and electoral votes are currently divvied out. You don’t need to be a statistician to see that this would give Republicans a major structural advantage at the ballot box for years to come."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...stion-supreme-court-department-justice-227280

 

It's worse than that. The corrupted apportionment results are in place for a decade, until the 2030 census does it again. The EC is only a part of that. I can only suggest doing what you have already done; send letters, and support efforts to fix the issue.

My suspicion is that the EC gerrymandering will make California a must-win state, which will of course mean that the critical swinging of the political pendulum left and right will stop. That will herald the end of our republic, and the democrats will have won by destroying our country.

 

Hyperbole aside, if you are an American, and you live and work in other nations, you still pay the taxes of those nations. You don't get to vote.

 

Obviously (D) sanctuaries will pick up EC delegates and that's unacceptable. There's no reason to delay a legal challenge to apportionment process. The census numbers might stand for a decade but an injunction to prevent apportionments based on the new census data might be granted. (D)'s really are scheming to transform our representive government into an autonomous politburo.

 

You could make the same argument about the census in general. We have asked the race question on the census forever. Do you suppose that Black people used to answer honestly back in the days of institutional racism? I am sure that some did, and some did not, yet we asked anyway. With all of the racism that the left sees nowadays, do you suppose that all black people answer honestly? Should we deem that question racist? Why did Obama put it on his census? It is yet another data point. Since the left is publishing studies that determine how many people that will make not answer the survey, then why cant they use those same powers and use a multiple applied to the data to arrive at the true conclusion? Obviously their projection is nothing but BS, but then the left will take their projection as gospel but then turn around and throw up their hands as if there is nothing that we can do to try to ascertain how many illegals live here.

For myself, my life doesn't change one iota whether or not that question is or isn't on the census. It truly is much ado about nothing. Even if you are going to argue that it is about electoral votes, 10 or 20 million people dont even register a blip on the radar of electroral vote apportionment. If it is a big deal to you, then you have been manipulated.

 

Has someone proposed an illegal alien question? You may want to do a tad bit of reading on the topic.

 

The (D) sanctuary state who picks up an Elector due to this chicanery, also takes that elector from another non-sanctuary state, so the damage is double.

 

Why We Ask Questions About...
Place of Birth, Citizenship, Year of Entry

We ask questions about a person’s place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry into the United States to create data about citizens, noncitizens, and the foreign-born population.

Agencies and policymakers use our published statistics to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws, understand the experience of different immigrant groups, and enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on national origin. These statistics also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.

https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/citizenship/

 

The GOP needs to get on the ball before Mexifornia and NY are the only states that matter.

 

Yes they do. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that they will, and have seen no indication that they even realize what is happening to our republic.

 

Well since in reference to the census you said "Yes, one of the two that's authorized by the Constitution, and neither of which is served by counting illegal aliens."....then why do you suppose they have had the citizenship question in some form on every census since 1880 except for 1960 and 2010?

You never answered the question asked in my one sentence reply to you. Saying "why wouldnt it be" is not a real answer. Your stated opinion is that neither goal of the census is served by a citizenship question, which is why I asked why have they had it since 1880. At minimum, the answer to "why wouldnt it be" according to your stated opinion would be that it doesn't serve the stated goals of the census. You see that's where your opinion is challenged because if it doesn't serve its goals as you claim, then why has it been included for so long? That is the question, and that is the challenge to your stated opinion because surely they must have felt that it DOES serve the goals of the census. You clearly didnt want to face the failure in your own logic, and instead opted to punt when it came to asnwering a very simple question about your opinion. Thats not typically the actions of someone holding a winning hand.

FWIW....the link that I provided verified my claim about a citizenship question being on the census on the dates that I stated. If you want to chellenge my assertion about dates, then by all means click on the link. If you want to cede that my dates are correct, then there is not a reason for you to click on the link.

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census-Bureaus-Birthplace-and-Citizenship-Questions-One-Table