Supreme Court alerted to 'new evidence' on Census citizenship question

No, the elected are there to represent the residents of their districts.

 

You are talking about Government lawyers. If you have no respect for them, how about Government doctors and hospitals.

 

Do children affect the vote?

 

What the justification is does not necessarily have to be what some dead guy wrote.

 

and today you learned that a belief about one aspect of one portion of the government does not mean that same belief applies to every aspect of every portion of the government.

 

Childrens are citizens and belong to their parents who are citizens unless they're illegals. The census is then used to aloocate ressources and define the level of representation of CITIZENS, not illegals.

Man, you really suck at argumenting a point. You havn't learned for the Smollett debacle it seems.

 

You are telling us the hospital has nothing more to do than treat a hundred thousand aliens. I don't think they want that. To leave them in Mexico where they can still burn tacos.

 

No, not necessarily.

But that is for the trier of fact to decide.

 

Nope, they're there to represent the CITIZENS of their district.

 

This question was on the Census for decades.

The whole goal here by the Democrats is to get Illegal Aliens to count, to bolster the populations in the areas where they have locks on the seats. This is nothing more than a power play to get more Democratic power.

That's all the Democrats are ever after, more power, more control, bigger government.

 

I knew that. I remind you the doctors and hospitals are far too busy to keep treating for free aliens. Let Mexico do it's job.

 

Childrens are citizens.

 

The US Constitution demands an accounting of all of the RESIDENTS in a given area.

Children have no influence on the voting process, so your argument of permitting the question because we need to account for the number of voters does not make any sense.

 

Do children affect the vote?

 

Are you ok with allocating congressional representation, ressources and programs for people who are in the country illegally?
Also you've failed to link not counting illegals as a plus for "white" republican, especially since the vast majority of illegals are in deep blue states.

 

Yes. Most politicians suck up to parents which does influence the vote. Many programs linked to childrens are part of every politician plateform, so yes they do.

 

Yes, I am absolutely OK with allocating congressional representation, resources and programs based on the number of residents requiring resources in a given area, including those residents who are there illegally.

Those individuals still reside in the area and require resources. You are never going to magically snap your fingers and remove them, so depriving a district of resources because you intentionally blinded yourself to the number of individuals living there (and thus the number of resources required to support those individuals) hurts everyone living in that area.

And I have repeatedly, and explicitly established the reasoning why suppressing the minority response rate helps white republicans. You even allude to one of the reasons yourself by noting that most of the illegals live in blue states. When those individuals (and their family members) do not respond to the question and the census returns an artificially low number of residents for that state, the federal government has a justification for providing fewer resources to them and, in turn, providing more resources to areas which are whiter and more republican.

 

They do not vote though, right?

Well, neither do illegals. And yet both children and illegals require resources and the district which provides those resources needs an accurate understanding of the number of residents living in its area, regardless of whether they vote or not.

 

They aren’t. Trying not to court all residents, they are simply also trying to count all citizens

 

Al Gore was the VP for Clinton and he boarded AF-2 and flew to the San Diego Area. I forget who was the woman official over the illegals at the time but they cooked up a plot to hustle up turning illegals into citizens so they could collect more mexican voters. It was when Clinton was president that I learned what happened and told the forum what was happening. Naturally Democrats said they do not believe it, trust me, they did believe it.

 

I could see you having a point on federal aid but for voting issues isn't it important to know if the citizens are legal?

 

So if they would've said "we're using a legal law to dissuade minorities from voting" they would've been in the clear?

 

You have voting which takes place every two years (more so if you start to factor in special elections) and they are explicitly limited to citizens and voters. So why is the census a better place or even a decent substitute/compliment for determining citizenship status for voting issues when it is conducted every 10 years?

 

No, I don't imagine that justification would survive judicial review.

 

It's probably not unless the federal government has no other means to verify an accurate count than them counting themselves. I guess im not understanding why the question is a huge deal is all. Thanks for your decent response btw appreciate it