• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

News The US Supreme Court will hear Trump appeal to exclude illegal immigrants from Census count - CNBC

TKOFromTokyo

Member
Jul 20, 2020
1,009
1,772
370
The government needs to know where to give illegals the hard earned money of legal citizens and non-citizens once Biden increases our taxes.

Why should we be rewarding people who break the law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: laser_printer

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,690
3,081
695
How would they know who are the real citizens though? I thought they dropped that question from the census?
 

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
1,274
2,084
425
I can’t believe it’s controversial to say that illegals shouldn’t be counted on the census, and illegal population should be no basis for seat in the House.
I believe that the original idea was to accommodate native Americans. It would never have been written that way if they had realized that illegal immigration would become commonplace.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620

Why is this even being debated? Why would illegals be considered in the first place? THEY ARE ILLEGALLY HERE?!
Ok, but like, we have a constitution, and the constitution doesn't exclude undocumented immigrants. It does exclude native Americans and 2/5 of every slave, but like, they amended that part.

You can't defend Constitutional Originalism in one breath and then say well I don't want to count illegals so let's not in the next.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
No compromise no count. If you're not here legally get the fuck out. It's a true sign of the times that common sense has to be litigated at the SC level.
Well if you get them the fuck out then they don't count for the census anymore. But while they're here they count unless you pass an amendment that says otherwise.

It sounds like somebody is looking for an activist judge to legislate this from the bench, hm?
 
Last edited:

TKOFromTokyo

Member
Jul 20, 2020
1,009
1,772
370
Ok, but like, we have a constitution, and the constitution doesn't exclude undocumented immigrants. It does exclude native Americans and 2/5 of every slave, but like, they amended that part.

You can't defend Constitutional Originalism in one breath and then say well I don't want to count illegals so let's not in the next.
You’re not even trying anymore. Get this terrible take out of here.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
You’re not even trying anymore. Get this terrible take out of here.
When this country was founded, do you know how you immigrated here? You just showed up. That's it. Constitutional law makes no distinction for illegal immigrants because the concept simply did not exist, so if you're looking for a textual/originalist basis for this, you won't find one.

You can argue the law should be changed, but if you're arguing that the supreme court should change it, then what you're saying is you want an activist judge to legislate from the bench.

Can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sobaka770

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,430
7,630
1,710
When this country was founded, do you know how you immigrated here? You just showed up. That's it. Constitutional law makes no distinction for illegal immigrants because the concept simply did not exist, so if you're looking for a textual/originalist basis for this, you won't find one.

You can argue the law should be changed, but if you're arguing that the supreme court should change it, then what you're saying is you want an activist judge to legislate from the bench.

Can't have it both ways.
Yeah, your just purposely acting like a fool. Not even worth the effort.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
How would they know who are the real citizens though? I thought they dropped that question from the census?
It was never added, and they wouldn't, this is all fuckery.

Yeah, your just purposely acting like a fool. Not even worth the effort.
Are you saying you DON'T want to reverse 250 years of precedent without any textual basis?

Talk all that shit, there's no argument here except the one that judges should make up their own meaning based on what they think is best, regardless of what the law says.

You might think the law is ridiculous. You might even be correct in that. But it doesn't make it not the law.
 
Last edited:

Kalamari

Member
Jul 31, 2012
7,085
233
665
The Great Northwest
Ok, but like, we have a constitution, and the constitution doesn't exclude undocumented immigrants. It does exclude native Americans and 2/5 of every slave, but like, they amended that part.

You can't defend Constitutional Originalism in one breath and then say well I don't want to count illegals so let's not in the next.
Can we get a reference to the text and/or precedent that supports your argument?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: RedVIper

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
Can we get a reference to the text and/or precedent that supports your argument?
Article 1, Section 2. It's pretty simple.

The idea that it's only supposed to count voting citizens is pretty hard to support, only land owners voted back then. Census counts everyone. Babies, prisoners, doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

duhu1148

Member
May 18, 2018
201
297
300
Well if you get them the fuck out then they don't count for the census anymore. But while they're here they count unless you pass an amendment that says otherwise.

It sounds like somebody is looking for an activist judge to legislate this from the bench, hm?
Ok, but like, we have a constitution, and the constitution doesn't exclude undocumented immigrants. It does exclude native Americans and 2/5 of every slave, but like, they amended that part.

You can't defend Constitutional Originalism in one breath and then say well I don't want to count illegals so let's not in the next.
When this country was founded, do you know how you immigrated here? You just showed up. That's it. Constitutional law makes no distinction for illegal immigrants because the concept simply did not exist, so if you're looking for a textual/originalist basis for this, you won't find one.

You can argue the law should be changed, but if you're arguing that the supreme court should change it, then what you're saying is you want an activist judge to legislate from the bench.

Can't have it both ways.
It was never added, and they wouldn't, this is all fuckery.


Are you saying you DON'T want to reverse 250 years of precedent without any textual basis?
Yeah...I don't think you understand "constitutional originalism/textualism" at all.

It's not "if it's not in the constitution it's automatically illegal." It often defaults to being a state's right to choose, if it isn't in the constitution. As Scalia, an originalist who wanted to overturn Roe v Wade put it once:

"The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Illegal immigration, however, was not possible until the late 19th century. There was no such thing as illegal immigration until then.

Of course the census issue isn't a state issue, it's a federal issue. However, I don't know if there are court precedents for this or not. Nor can I be bothered to research that in-depth for days on end. And neither do I study law for a living.

But this:

Talk all that shit, there's no argument here except the one that judges should make up their own meaning based on what they think is best, regardless of what the law says.
is extremely arrogant.

You have clear partisan bias, and I'd wager a guess that you haven't studied law either. The idea that you know there's "no argument here except where judges make one up" when the case hasn't been decided and you don't know the law or all of previous court precedents...is asinine.

I'd wager a guess that if the court does side with Trump here, that Sotomayor will be on the dissenting opinion. So since the judges who side with Trump are the activists, that makes her an originalist right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sign

ramuh

Member
Jun 7, 2013
5,080
401
615
It dillutes the American citizen's vote. It's going to depend on how they interpret everything tho.
 

Texas Pride

Member
Feb 27, 2018
2,663
4,774
630
Texas
Well if you get them the fuck out then they don't count for the census anymore. But while they're here they count unless you pass an amendment that says otherwise.

It sounds like somebody is looking for an activist judge to legislate this from the bench, hm?

It never should've been in there to begin with imo. Illegals are breaking the law by being here ya know illegally. They don't deserve any consideration that a US citizen enjoys since they're criminals not from this country.
 
Last edited:

desertdroog

Gold Member
Aug 12, 2008
6,070
11,965
1,400
Does the census take into account foreign nationals who are vacationing/working on a Visa? How about foreign diplomats?

Why or why not?

If not, why should someone who is here illegally or on an expired Visa be considered in the census, when they are supposed to be deported to their nation?
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
Yeah...I don't think you understand "constitutional originalism/textualism" at all.

It's not "if it's not in the constitution it's automatically illegal." It often defaults to being a state's right to choose, if it isn't in the constitution. As Scalia, an originalist who wanted to overturn Roe v Wade put it once:

"The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."
The census is strictly used for calculating federal representation, it is not a states issue, and in fact has ZERO impact on state level government. The idea that it could somehow be up to the states doesn't make any sense to me. And even if it did, no state would ever rule to decrease their own census, since it would mean less representation and funding. EDIT: I see you kind of acknowledge this later in your post.

Illegal immigration, however, was not possible until the late 19th century. There was no such thing as illegal immigration until then.
Right, and like I said, even prisoners get counted, "legality" is not really a factor.

Of course the census issue isn't a state issue, it's a federal issue. However, I don't know if there are court precedents for this or not. Nor can I be bothered to research that in-depth for days on end. And neither do I study law for a living.
So here's a little shortcut: If illegal immigrants are counted now, and have always been counted, what do you think the precedent has ruled?

But this:

is extremely arrogant.
I know, man, and I'm not gonna do that if someone wants to have a real discussion, but I'm responding to a bunch of posts that are just slinging insults with zero substance or argument, so yeah I'm being a blowhard as a way of throwing the gauntlet down.
 
Last edited:

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
It never should've been in there to begin with imo. Illegals are breaking the law by being here ya know illegally. They don't deserve any consideration that a US citizen enjoys since they're criminals.
You realize pedophiles and serial killers sitting in jail get counted for the census, right? The census isn't about citizenship or rights, it's about calculating how big a state's population is.
 

Texas Pride

Member
Feb 27, 2018
2,663
4,774
630
Texas
You realize pedophiles and serial killers sitting in jail get counted for the census, right? The census isn't about citizenship or rights, it's about calculating how big a state's population is.


US criminals with US citizenship should be counted because they're US citizens. If you're here illegally from another country you shouldn't get any representative status in a country they have no right to be in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sign and RedVIper

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
US criminals with US citizenship should be counted because they're US citizens. If you're here illegally from another country you shouldn't get any representative status in a country they have no right to be in.
The census doesn't count citizens. The word the contitution uses is "persons." Illegal immigrants aren't citizens, but are you really gonna argue they're not people?

They don't get to vote, so they don't have any representatives. This isn't a rights issue, it's a procedural thing defined in the constitution to calculate the size of a state.

It's also worth mentioning that your state (assuming you do in fact live in Texas) would probably face the biggest penalty of all of them. You would lose representation.
 
Last edited:

Riven326

Would place his sister in the spank bank.
Mar 25, 2019
5,393
10,556
745
United States
The census doesn't count citizens. The word the contitution uses is "persons." Illegal immigrants aren't citizens, but are you really gonna argue they're not people?

They don't get to vote, so they don't have any representatives. This isn't a rights issue, it's a procedural thing defined in the constitution to calculate the size of a state.
Voter fraud doesn't happen?
 

TKOFromTokyo

Member
Jul 20, 2020
1,009
1,772
370
When this country was founded, do you know how you immigrated here? You just showed up. That's it. Constitutional law makes no distinction for illegal immigrants because the concept simply did not exist, so if you're looking for a textual/originalist basis for this, you won't find one.

You can argue the law should be changed, but if you're arguing that the supreme court should change it, then what you're saying is you want an activist judge to legislate from the bench.

Can't have it both ways.
The 14th amendment discusses citizenship, including citizenship by naturalization. The Naturalization Clause gives Congress the power to establish rules for Citizenship. If Congress has established criteria for becoming naturalized and it’s not met by immigrants than they cannot be naturalized citizens.
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
17,269
32,957
870
39
good they need to get on this. it's a little fucked that states get more voting power based on the illegal citizens they are exploiting.
US criminals with US citizenship should be counted because they're US citizens. If you're here illegally from another country you shouldn't get any representative status in a country they have no right to be in.
currently i believe it is both. when they figure out electoral college or congress distribution, it's not just legal citizens that get counted, but illegal citizens as well as prisoners (who cannot vote yet are counted towards the state's vote power). California has a lot of both, a giant prison population as well as manual laborers (both of whom are exploited for their labor as well as their vote).

there are plusses and minuses to giving out the vote to everyone. imo it should be prioritized to the people who invest in the actual geographical area, not those who send money back home. this is why it was landowners at first.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Texas Pride

Texas Pride

Member
Feb 27, 2018
2,663
4,774
630
Texas
The census doesn't count citizens. The word the contitution uses is "persons." Illegal immigrants aren't citizens, but are you really gonna argue they're not people?

They don't get to vote, so they don't have any representatives. This isn't a rights issue, it's a procedural thing defined in the constitution to calculate the size of a state.

It's also worth mentioning that your state (assuming you do in fact live in Texas) would probably face the biggest penalty of all of them. You would lose representation.


I would have to believe that the constitution using the word "persons" was done with the expectation that those "persons" were in fact US citizens. Because illegal immigration to my knowledge wasn't a thing when the constitution was written. To your other point even if I lose representation I still would advocate that illegals not count towards the census.
 

Riven326

Would place his sister in the spank bank.
Mar 25, 2019
5,393
10,556
745
United States
I don't buy that millions of illegal immigrants are voting, no. I'm sure that isolated cases occur, but most illegals I've known aren't going to risk getting deported over something like that.
Illegals that you know? Anecdotal. I think the democrats would be fools to ignore the millions of illegals that are here.
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,045
2,551
620
I would have to believe that the constitution using the word "persons" was done with the expectation that those "persons" were in fact US citizens.
Why? Like we said, every immigrant was a legal immigrant at the time. They clearly saw no problem with counting evreryone, or with open borders, in fact.

In fact, no census since the founding of this country has ever excluded non-citizens. So what are you basing that argument on?

I certainly understand you could make an argument for what you think the law should be, but that doesn't mean that's what the law is. But if you think that has any bearing on court ruling, you are essentially advocating for activist judges to legislate from the bench. Pretty simple.
 
Last edited:

Texas Pride

Member
Feb 27, 2018
2,663
4,774
630
Texas
Why? Like we said, every immigrant was a legal immigrant at the time. They clearly saw no problem with counting evreryone, or with open borders, in fact.

In fact, no census since the founding of this country has ever excluded non-citizens. So what are you basing that argument on?

I certainly understand you could make an argument for what you think the law should be, but that doesn't mean that's what the law is. But if you think that has any bearing on court ruling, you are essentially advocating for activist judges to legislate from the bench. Pretty simple.


It's my opinion in the end and I don't want activist judges on the SC so you missed me twice with that insinuation. We'll see how it shakes out in court though I doubt that settles the argument on the matter for very long.
 

Kalamari

Member
Jul 31, 2012
7,085
233
665
The Great Northwest
Illegal immigration, however, was not possible until the late 19th century. There was no such thing as illegal immigration until then.
This is a strong point, I don't believe the founders ever perceived the possibility of criminals adversely influencing a state's number of representatives or electors. Persons in the U.S. were just persons prior to 1875, but now there are legal persons and illegal persons. Why should persons not obeying the immigration laws adversely influence representation for those who obey? States with greater number of illegal immigrants could have greater than their fair share of representation. For example, voters from states with more illegals receive greater representation than voters from states with a lesser proportion of illegals.

I suspect this may be another equal protections case.
 

prinz_valium

Member
Oct 15, 2013
1,491
1,532
775
I can’t believe it’s controversial to say that illegals shouldn’t be counted on the census, and illegal population should be no basis for seat in the House.
They should be counted. Because you need to know who is living there. Medics still need to save the lifes of illegal people and tourists.

But they should not count towards house seats. That's why i disagree with the citizenship question being denied.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: mickaus
Dec 15, 2011
9,739
27,650
1,165
Propagandist astroturfer makes argument against selectively adhering to the constitution .. whilst they themselves practice selectively adhering to the constitution..

..before being challenged, called out, asked for evidence and responds with the equivalent of "Trust me".

Defund astroturfing propagandists.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
7,895
14,313
1,020
Article 1, Section 2. It's pretty simple.

The idea that it's only supposed to count voting citizens is pretty hard to support, only land owners voted back then. Census counts everyone. Babies, prisoners, doesn't matter.
An argument could be made that all noncitizen Latinos are just untaxed Indians; So I think it is fair to not count them.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
7,895
14,313
1,020
Untaxed Indians means people living on reservations, who are not taxed and exempt from most of federal law. Not any native American in the bottom tax bracket.
You twist my words, but that is how ilk like you function.

While I was making my point with my tongue in my cheek, I was making a point that a group of people who are not citizens, who don’t pay federal taxes, shouldn’t be counted in census rolls.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
17,109
6,532
1,555
If you have enough information to accurately count them don't you have enough information to deport them?

What's the real reason for counting them, redistricting? I mean there has to be a political angle to this, right?
 

Darkmakaimura

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2008
14,576
5,187
1,470

Why is this even being debated? Why would illegals be considered in the first place? THEY ARE ILLEGALLY HERE?!
Sort of a Devil's Advocate here but I'm guessing it has to do with the idea thar they're still living here, even if not legally.

I'm not exactly sure what else the census includes besides a population count, though.
 
Sort of a Devil's Advocate here but I'm guessing it has to do with the idea thar they're still living here, even if not legally.

I'm not exactly sure what else the census includes besides a population count, though.
It's been covered in the thread, but I guess a lot of grey area between what was intended with the census and where we are now.