Do you think that illegal immigrants are being used by the Democratic party to win in 2020?

Just the opposite. Trump is using the whole immigration thing to scare people, so that he can say that he is the powerful person and that people should vote for him.

Trump was the one who picked these fights – go back to Inauguration Day and his Muslim ban.

Everything is, was, and will be done to assure his reelection.

The citizenship question on the census was patently illegal and from a demographic point of view, absurd.

@elbanditoroso Just to clarify, you do not believe the American people have the right to know how many people live in the US that are/ are not citizens in regards to the election process?

I do understand they are afraid of LEO’s or ICE showing up, but I’m torn on the issue of whether that’s our right as taxpayers to have those numbers.

@KNOWITALL If I had to guess, I would be willing to bet a pretty decent sum that the total number of people who are eligible and would vote but end up not voting in 2020 due to voter suppression measures is several orders of magnitude larger than people who can’t legally vote actually voting and having their vote count. If you factor in gerrymandering, and how that devalues some people’s votes and overvalues others, then it’s many times even worse than that.

@KNOWITALL you are confusing or conflating two things.

Yes, America has a right to know how many citizens are in the US. No question. I agree with that.

But the Decennial Census is not the tool for that; it is specifically designed to count everyone, not just citizens. It is not constitutional to use it for that.\

Which is why the alternative that Trump announced yesterday (get info from other agencies) is the proper way to do things. It is what Trump should have been doing all along. He chose to take the illegal route. Shame on him

@KNOWITALL ” you do not believe the American people have the right to know how many people live in the US that are/ are not citizens in regards to the election process?”

The census was nothing to do with the election process. Nor is it the purpose of the census to discern citizenship or not. The purpose of the census is to give an accounting of all residents, citizen or not.

The “using the situation” is all on one side, the Republicans have been pushing for it to depress enumeration of Democratic states and precincts.

The Republican internal emails have shown it to be a way to thwart the accuracy of the Census, which is a Constitutionally mandated Responsibility of the Federal Government.

The idea that people afraid of being deported would choose to illegally vote are “being used by the Democratic party to win in 2020” frightens me… that anyone would think that might be a real thing.

I hope the Democrats use whatever dirty tricks they have to boot the fascist out of office.

I do not think that “illegal immigrants” are being used by the democratic party to “win” in 2020. I do think that republicans are “using illegal immigrants” to quite literally discount a portion of fearful non-citizens (AND citizens) on the census, which would prevent money and services from flowing to those areas in the future.

I view the citizenship question as highly inappropriate, inflammatory and fear-mongering for the census.

I do think that we “have the right” to know how many “illegal immigrants” are in the US but that has nothing to do with the census and everything to do with ensuring appropriate social, medical and educational services.

@elbanditoroso Interesting. Because Trump is making it sound (to many) as if Dems are giving illegal immigrants a voice in our allocation and apportion process, which is causing a bit of an uproar. I’m hearing a lot about it this week.

Why an Accurate Census Count in 2020 Matters. ... Allocating Government Representation: The U.S. Constitution outlines that the census is used to allocate and apportion seats for the House of Representatives equitably.Nov 21, 2018

I don’t expect the census to be accurate because I don’t expect many people to be available or answer it accurately.

@KNOWITALL your quote is OK as far as it goes. Your quote says nothing about citizenship. The apportionment is to be based on a count of ALL PERSONS not just citizens.

Did you leave that portion out on purpose?

The number of electoral votes a state gets is affected by the citizenship question.

I don’t get why any of you are saying its illegal, just because Obama passed an executive order for its removal.

And as to the original premise of the question, Trump has NOT backed down on this.

It WILL pass. There;s no reason for it not to,

No, Obama did not remove the citizenship question

Nope

Nuh, uh

Do you even attempt to learn the truth?

@elbanditoroso No, it was not part of what I read in any googling of this issue. Not sure which side is misinformed at this point, but I need to find out. Obviously @Yellodog disagrees with you, so someone is right and someone is wrong.

Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year
by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the
Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State
Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five
Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting
of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in
such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not
exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one
Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire
shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight,
Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and
Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority
thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment.

@Yellowdog The claim that the census should seek only the number of residents, legal and illegal, in a state is not accurate. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment mandates the counting of citizens in each state. Legal scholars David B. Rivkin and Gibson B. Gray explain the necessity of this:

“Section 2 of the 14th Amendment provides that if a state denies the franchise to anyone eligible to vote, its allotment of House seats shall be ‘reduced in the proportion which the number of such… citizens shall bear to the whole number of… citizens … in such state.’ This language is absolute and mandatory. Compliance is impossible without counting how many citizens live in each state.”

Some 11 million residents are in the United States illegally. Their count is external to Section 2.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/452559-census-citizenship-question-is-constitutional-and-should-be-approved

Looks like it’s over for now: The decision came five days after a divided Supreme Court rejected the Administration’s primary reason behind the plan to ask the question. The end of that plan closed a political and constitutional controversy that began unfolding soon after President Trump entered office two and a half years ago.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/its-final-no-citizenship-question-on-2020-census

Would neither surprise or shock me, politicians the world over will always manipulate in order to gain support, nothing is off bounds.

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q2

“What is apportionment?
Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 memberships, or seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states.

Who is included in the apportionment population counts?
The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states. In the 2010 Census, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state. This is the same procedure used in 2000.”

edited by me

I think the last few decades of efforts to avoid election integrity have led to the current efforts. Dems (such as in California) have even made efforts to allow illegals to get driver’s licenses. Conveniently, they also allow license holders to register for voting when they get their license. Past elections have found thousands of illegal voters registered to vote in a variety of districts. I can surmise that if we were to actually go look honestly at voter registrations, we would find there are many illegals voting or registered to vote. And ALL the efforts to avoid any rules that would shore up the voting integrity are made by Dems. So yes, I think the Dems are or are trying to use the illegals as votes for winning elections.

I think so. Democrats know that illegal immigrant votes benefit them, Republicans know that making it harder for poor people to vote (voter ID laws) benefits them. And I do think that both parties stand to gain something from this controversy.

The census has nothing to do with whether non-citizens can vote. Nobody is saying that they should.

@Demosthenes That’s how I see it, too.

The portion of the Constitution I posted specifically says ‘indians not taxed’, so if illegals aren’t taxed individually by the govt (via SS#), wouldn’t that preclude them being included?

@janbb We aren’t saying that, well @Desmosthenes is, probably in response to @seawulfs voting assertion.
It’s a numbers game when it comes to the census. If the more people you have means you get more representation politically, then it’s in your favor to boost your ‘population’ for a win. Trump is implying that Dems are trying to ‘work the system’ essentially. Some on the right believe that the Dems are openly trying to be devious by ‘helping’ illegal immigrants for political gain.

No point in arguing; nobody will convince anyone.

@janbb lol, true. Honestly it makes a lot more sense to me that this is such a huge issue, including the wall, sanctuary cities, etc…someone somewhere has a use for them, it’s not just to help the world be a better place, not with politics.

@KNOWITALL Actually for many of us it is pretty clear that objecting to separating children from their parents and putting them in detention camps without adequate bedding, food or sanitation is “just to help the world” and the country be a place we can bear to live in.

@KNOWITALL Please show statistics on, anyone illegal / legal aliens, felons, non-residents etc, voting. Here are statistics for eastern North Carolina 19 in the Eastern part of the state. The total number of voters in the state is ==> 7,139,00 so about half are in the eastern district. 19 out 3,550,00 is not a way to win an election. . . . SOOOOOO it is not a big deal.

GOP in NC is put in jam because of illegal votes cast as absentee. that may have total 1,000 votes out of 276,000 in a close election enough to get GOP elected but, later thrown out. Person in question collect absentee ballos which is illegal and total absentee ballots cast didn’t jive with requested. But that all okay because it was the GOP.

@Tropical_Willie Well @seawulf575 said that, not me. Take it up with him.

@janbb Or you’re naive about political maneuvering and how far they’d go to win.

This is from a legal website, not partisan.
Immigration detention is not too different than jail or prison. ICE either operates the facilities independently or, increasingly, contracts with local sheriff or police departments to house detainees. Therefore, the physical layout of the facility, level of crowding, available amenities, and whether detainees are housed alongside state prisoners may vary widely.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/immigration-detention-101-information-detainees-family-friends.html

And yet there are photos and reports from the for-profit privately run camps. I suspect it’s not me who is naive.

Stopping to follow at this point.

We can’t all be good Germans.

That sounds like typical right wing Republican propaganda.

The census tries to give as accurate a picture as possible of the US population. Everyone living in the country should be encouraged to take part and Including questions people are afraid to answer isn’t going to help.

@KNOWITALL The website you quote from offers no reassurance regarding the conditions immigrants face. There may be overcrowding, there may be a lack of amenities they may be housed alongside convicted criminals.

And what you omitted from your quote was this which is quite shocking “Detainees who have medical conditions have the right to appropriate medical treatment at ICE expense. For example, if someone has recently had surgery and requires regular medication, ICE is supposed to provide this medication. ICE does not always follow through on its obligations, however. If ICE fails to provide such care, contact an immigration attorney who can advocate on the detainee’s behalf.”

This is from the non-partisan website that you provided us with.

@janbb Run away after tossing an insult, very chilish antics.

@flutherother I posted the link so I didnt omit anything.

Many of you seem to refuse to see the issue of constitutionality, which was the entire point. Sigh.

I didn’t read the answers above.

Both sides are worried about it. If Trump uses the census to gerrymander then it will help the Republicans. If the issue was going to help the Democrats to only count citizens they probably would be on the side of not counting non-citizens.

The question is what does the constitution say. Republicans usually like the constitution. It says to count all free persons for representation in Congress.

@JLeslie No, indians were exempt as they didnt pay Fed tax.

Ah yes, That’s right about the Indian exclusion. Plus, the 3/5ths rule that was used previously so the Southern states could get more representation. They wanted their slaves counted even though they weren’t free. Probably, someone talked about that above, sorry for not reading everything through.

Edit: I’ll add that the Democrats are trying to overcome the problem with changing the electoral vote in each state to match the national popular vote. So, in that case the representation by total population is moot, because only citizens vote.

>> call immigrants rapists and drug dealers
>> turn ICE into a 21st century GESTAPO
>> force children into concentration camps
>> ???
>> D̙͖͔̹ͤ̓ë̶̹̘̣͉̦̰́ͦͣͤ̒ͨ̚͢m̴͔̙̹̥̟̤̥̟̝̌ͣͬ̈́̓̐͒ͤo̷̤̳̍͋ͣͩ͞c͕̬̘͎̼̖ͦ̌̅̃̓͜r̸͉̰̖̯̪̾̀͘ȃ̷͖̄ͭ̈ͫ̚ț̶̷͇̰͓͙̯̝̹̟ͫ̂͗s̢͙̰̱̞͖ͣͨ͌̄̿͐̈͆̔͜͠ ̶̞̩͕́͋ͯ̒̾ͬ̽͒͡a̧͕ͮ͂͂r̰ͭ͋ͤ́̓̎ͣ́e̛̺͓͍̖̲͇̼͓̓ͭͩ͑̂̒͠ ͈̫͐̉ͭ̄͗̒̔̐u̟̘͇̝̍͒̓̂ͭ́͟ş͊̊̓ͯͣ͐̊͗ͧ҉̴͕̯̟̝ͅi̤̞͖̺̱̙ͥ̿̂͒͊̏̈͘n̜̘̺̪̗̱͔̼͔ͥͥ̋ͮ͐̓̾̔͝g̰͓͍̲̟͕͕͓͖ͤ̕ ̛̩̣͚̼̩͙͈̩̬̇͌̚͟i̫̙̱̹̮̥̟ͩ͋͗ͧ́̍̕m̬̲̣̫̋ͦ͆ͫͮ̽͛́͠m̼͈͙̥̳̿͑ͪͣ́ͥ̄̍͠i̶̲͈̬̹̟̤ͪͪ͂̌̐͆͜g̨͍̮͔̳̮͖͙̓́r͔̼͚̲͖̥̬̰̎́͢ȃ̛̛͉̱̪̩ͬ̿̾̓ͭn̢͙̪͇͎̖̫͗͋̃t̸͈̖̬ͮ̓̾ͧͪͩ͢ͅs͍͈̮̣̤͑̓ͤ̚ ̻̪̻͔̝̲̻̓̿̔ͯͤ̓̋ţ̸̘̖͖͍̫̲̹̿ͬ̏ͭ͐̊́o̧̢͚̬̪̳̮̜̥ͯ̉͂̀ͧ̑͢ ̴̭̟̠̗͎͕͖̻ͪ͊͒̓͑̈́̆̅ͩw̮̬̣̝͚̹͋ͥͥ̌ͧͮ̀i̵̭̼̹̱͈͒̍͊n̶̟̘̙̖͕̟ͪ͒̊͛ ͍͉̦͌̅ͥe̸ͥ̄̿͊ͭ̈̓̕҉͙̳̠͔̱̠͇̳l̵̼̙̰͊͗̓̉̿e͎̻͓̤̥̱̟̞̔̌̄c͔͎͍͍̤̲̪̥̄͊̈́̾ͬͫͣ̂͝ṯ͗̓ͭ́͋ͫ̄̆͜͟i̶̡̟͎͕̰̺̦̩̹̠͐͊̀ŏ̧̢͇̪̝̤̈̓̔͐ͩ͜n̢͕̯̗͉̝̰̥̳ͪ̅̀

My mistake regarding the electoral vote matching the national popular vote—the representation by population still matters for the House of Representatives, it just wouldn’t matter for the vote for president.