Trump Signs Executive Order BLOCKING Illegal Aliens from Census

[Swordsmyth]

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump on Tuesday.

Congressional seats and electoral college votes are currently divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California, New York, and Florida to receive more congressional seats and electoral college votes, while diluting political power in states with small illegal alien populations.

States like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia were projected to lose congressional seats if the illegal alien population was included in congressional apportioning.

The memorandum, White House officials said, will ensure American citizens receive proper representation in Congress without being minimized by apportionment counts inflated by the illegal alien population.

“Today’s action to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base reflects a better understanding of the Constitution and is consistent with the principles of our representative democracy,” Trump said in a statement.

“My Administration will not support giving congressional representation to aliens who enter or remain in the country unlawfully, because doing so would create perverse incentives and undermine our system of government,” Trump continued. “Just as we do not give political power to people who are here temporarily, we should not give political power to people who should not be here at all.”

More at: https://us24news.com/blog/2020/07/21...s-from-census/

[69360]

This makes sense

[Anti Globalist]

Pretty good move. Only American citizens should be counted on the census.

[Mr.NoSmile]

I have the sneaking feeling that groups like the ACLU would try to challenge this, if they haven't already, to try and prevent this from going into action.

[Sammy]

Fantastic!

[Sonny Tufts]

Pretty good move. Only American citizens should be counted on the census.

The Constitution has never restricted the count to citizens:

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. I.2.3

The foregoing was modified by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Trump's EO is clearly unconstitutional. This issue has been discussed before:

As Madison stated in Federalist 54,

It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. (emphasis added)

This principle was reiterated when the 14th Amendment was approved by Congress. A proposal to have the Amendment allocate representation in accordance with voter population instead of total population was introduced by Thaddeus Stevens but was rejected. Introducing the final version of the Amendment on the Senate floor, Senator Jacob Howard explained:

[The] basis of representation is numbers . . . ; that is, the whole population except untaxed Indians and persons excluded by the State laws for rebellion or other crime. . . . The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; and such, I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which the Government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property; this is the theory of the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766–2767 (1866).

Edit: See also the comments of Senator Conkling, recognizing that aliens were already included in determining representation:

It has been insisted that “citizens” and not “persons” should be the basis for representation and apportionment. These words were in the amendment as I originally drew it and introduced it, but my own judgment was that it should be “persons” and to this the committee assented.

There are several answers to this argument in favor of “citizens” rather than “persons”. The present Constitution is, and always was, opposed to this suggestion. “Persons” and not “citizens” has always constituted the basis.

Again, it would narrow the basis of taxation and cause considerable inequalities in this respect, because the number of aliens in some States is very large, and growing larger now, when emigrants reach our shores at the rate of more than a State a year.

Again, many of the large States now hold their representation in part by reason of their aliens, and the Legislatures and people of these States are to pass upon the amendment. It must be made acceptable to them. For these reasons the committee had adhered to the Constitution as it is, proposing to add to it only so much as is necessary to meet the point aimed at. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 359 (1866)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tionment/page2

It should be noted that under the original constitutional provision a large number of noncitizens were specifically included in the census count -- slaves (on a 3/5 basis).

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The Constitution has never restricted the count to citizens:

Sonny Tufts loves the constitution when it favors him, but hates it when it doesn't.

[eleganz]

I have the sneaking feeling that groups like the ACLU would try to challenge this, if they haven't already, to try and prevent this from going into action.

Yes you are correct, they already have almost immediately yesterday.

And I wonder how many congressional seats a state like California could lose if they lost illegal alien apportionment.

[PAF]

ATTENTION:

This ANTI-LIBERTY thread is diversionary, and throws little bones to "republicans" who support restrictionism.

What everybody should be concerned about is "Operation Warp Speed" and Tracking Technologies for every American, every person, on earth. This is a U.N./Gates Agenda.

[tfurrh]

Zippyjuaaaaaaan!

[bv3]

ATTENTION:

This ANTI-LIBERTY thread is diversionary, and throws little bones to "republicans" who support restrictionism.

What everybody should be concerned about is "Operation Warp Speed" and Tracking Technologies for every American, every person, on earth. This is a U.N./Gates Agenda.

bump

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution has never restricted the count to citizens:



The foregoing was modified by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Trump's EO is clearly unconstitutional. This issue has been discussed before:



It should be noted that under the original constitutional provision a large number of noncitizens were specifically included in the census count -- slaves (on a 3/5 basis).

Illegals are invaders and occupiers, under common law they do not count and must not be counted.

[Swordsmyth]

ATTENTION:

This ANTI-LIBERTY thread is diversionary, and throws little bones to "republicans" who support restrictionism.

What everybody should be concerned about is "Operation Warp Speed" and Tracking Technologies for every American, every person, on earth. This is a U.N./Gates Agenda.

Globalists like this want to flood the country with communists so that anyone who cares about the issues they pretend to care about has no chance to do anything about them.

[Swordsmyth]

Sonny Tufts loves the constitution when it favors him, but hates it when it doesn't.

Just like all leftists, but as in so many cases it doesn't really favor him this time.

Illegals are invaders and occupiers and do not count as residents.

[TheCount]

Illegals are invaders and occupiers, under common law they do not count and must not be counted.

That's an amazing thing that you just made up.

[Swordsmyth]

That's an amazing thing that you just made up.

Nope, it's Common Law.

[Swordsmyth]

Those not legally residing here are not legally residents.

[TheCount]

Nope, it's Common Law.

No, it's not.

[Swordsmyth]

No, it's not.

Yes it is, and it's SCOTUS doctrine:

"Their respective numbers" means the numbers that belong to them.
Illegal invaders don't belong to them, they belong to the foreign countries they come from.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4])



Invaders are not legally here and therefore can't be treated as being here for legal purposes, they are not residents in the eyes of the law.

[Swordsmyth]

President Donald Trump has issued an executive memorandum to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to discount illegal aliens who are subject to legal removal from the U.S. Census.
Here, the President is invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”
From the President’s memorandum: “The Constitution does not specifically define which persons must be included in the apportionment base. Although the Constitution requires the ‘persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed,’ to be enumerated in the census, that requirement has never been understood to include in the apportionment base every individual physically present within a State’s boundaries at the time of the census. Instead, the term ‘persons in each State’ has been interpreted to mean that only the ‘inhabitants’ of each State should be included.”
So, who are the inhabitants of each state? The President’s memorandum says it “requires the exercise of judgment. For example, aliens who are only temporarily in the United States, such as for business or tourism, and certain foreign diplomatic personnel are ‘persons’ who have been excluded from the apportionment base in past censuses.”
Which, raises the question, if tourists — whose travel visas have certain expiration dates — can and have been excluded from the Census, then why not illegal immigrants who are subject to removal upon discovery by federal authorities?
In Burns v. Richardson (1966) the Supreme Court held that tourists and other non-permanent residents could be excluded from apportionment in the Hawaii state legislature because “Total population figures may thus constitute a substantially distorted reflection of the distribution of state citizenry,” which would have granted more representatives to Oahu than were owed under the State constitution.
The same can be said of sanctuary states like California, whose own non-legal resident populations skew the Census and award additional seats in the House to that state that would not otherwise be counted if only legal inhabitants were considered. Given that illegal immigrants are not legal residents, they are temporary migrants, they could be treated the same as tourists under the law — at least, that’s what President Trump is saying. The question is whether, like in Burns, who is being counted constitutes a “permissible population base,” in the words of the Court.


Now, Trump’s move to block illegal aliens from being counted will surely be tried against the Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) Supreme Court decision that held “As constitutional history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, a State or locality may draw its legislative districts based on total population.” Then, plaintiffs were objecting to Texas’ plan to count the total population including non-citizens, both legal and illegal, given in the Census toward legislative districts. The Supreme Court unanimously held in Texas’ favor.
And while that may seem like it might preclude what Trump is trying to do here, the question is slightly different, which is what constitutes the “total population” in each state. Is it the number persons who happen to be in each state at the time of the Census’ taking? Or the number of inhabitants, as Trump suggests? And who decides who is an inhabitant?
Here, Trump shows that past presidents have made the ultimate determination, excluding tourists and also sometimes excluding overseas military personnel and sometimes including them.
From the memorandum, “the Constitution also has never been understood to exclude every person who is not physically ‘in’ a State at the time of the census. For example, overseas Federal personnel have, at various times, been included in and excluded from the populations of the States in which they maintained their homes of record. The discretion delegated to the executive branch to determine who qualifies as an ‘inhabitant’ includes authority to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.”
So, Trump wishes to separate out citizens and legal residents from those here either on temporary visas or are here illegally. That’s different from what the Supreme Court decided in 2016.
The case is stronger than you think. If persons with temporary travel visas have been excluded constitutionally in past Censuses, then why should persons who overstay those travel visas be included? The same can be said for illegal aliens subject to deportation who never had a visa to begin with. If tourists and visa overstayers aren’t included, then neither should illegal aliens be included.

More at: http://dailytorch.com/2020/07/presid...han-you-think/

[TheCount]

Yes it is, and it's SCOTUS doctrine:

Citizenship has nothing to do with the census.

Move on to your next made-up argument.

[Swordsmyth]

Citizenship has nothing to do with the census.

Move on to your next made-up argument.

What matters is the legal status of the invaders, their children don't get citizenship because they are not residents according to the law and therefore they can't be counted as residents for the census either.

[Valli6]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...to-red-states/

Mo Brooks: Exclusion of Illegal Aliens in Congressional Apportionment Gives Power Back to Red States
July 22 2020
By John Binder

Excluding illegal aliens from congressional apportionment counts will shift Washington, D.C. power from sanctuary states back to red states, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) says.

On Tuesday, President Trump signed a memorandum to exclude illegal aliens from being counted when the federal government apportions congressional representation to the states — a reversal of existing policy that allows states with large illegal populations to soak up more political power by counting all residents.

Brooks said he “enthusiastically” supports Trump’s memorandum.

“Including illegal aliens — who, by definition, are transients and not residents of any state — in the census apportionment count undermines Fourteenth Amendment equal protection ‘one-man, one-vote’ principles,” Brooks said in a statement.

Red states, Brooks has long warned, were set to unfairly lose out on congressional representation just because they do not incentivize driving up their population via incentives for illegal aliens. The issue spurred a lawsuit by Brooks and the state of Alabama against the federal government, demanding illegal aliens be excluded from congressional apportionment counts.

“If illegal aliens are included in the apportionment count, Alabama will likely lose representation in the U.S. House and Electoral College to the benefit of sanctuary states that promote illegal immigration,” Brooks said, adding:

I stand for fair and equal representation of American citizens. That’s why in May of 2018, I joined Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (on behalf of the State of Alabama) in suing in Federal court to prevent illegal aliens from being included in the census apportionment count. President Trump’s Executive Order highlights the importance of this case.

Brook has previously estimated that if there are roughly 15 million illegal aliens living in the U.S., and if they are counted in congressional apportionment, they could help secure 20 additional congressional seats and electoral college votes for blue states.

A 2018 analysis by Breitbart News determined that going further, only counting American citizens in congressional apportionment, would shift political power away from coastal states with large illegal populations and toward middle America.

Today, there are an estimated 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. The Census estimates that at current legal and illegal immigration levels, by 2060, about one-in-six residents will have been born outside the country.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...to-red-states/

[TheCount]

What matters is the legal status of the invaders

That's an amazing thing that you just made up.


Also, nothing in anything you said used the word "resident."


Also, you still don't know what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

[Swordsmyth]

That's an amazing thing that you just made up.


Also, nothing in anything you said used the word "resident."


Also, you still don't know what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

Proving again that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Sonny Tufts]

Yes it is, and it's SCOTUS doctrine

No, it isn't. There's a huge difference between "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory" and illegal immigrants. The former refers to people like the Germans who occupied France and other European countries during WWII, but not to illegal immigrants who've lived here peaceably for years. Until Trump's memo came out the Census Bureau agreed that illegal immigrants (a/k/a "undocumented residents") were included. See https://www.census.gov/topics/public...t/faqs.html#Q6

[Swordsmyth]

No, it isn't. There's a huge difference between "enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory" and illegal immigrants. The former refers to people like the Germans who occupied France and other European countries during WWII, but not to illegal immigrants who've lived here peaceably for years. Until Trump's memo came out the Census Bureau agreed that illegal immigrants (a/k/a "undocumented residents") were included. See https://www.census.gov/topics/public...t/faqs.html#Q6

No difference.

Invaders who are not legally present are all the same for citizenship or apportionment purposes.

If they are not legally here then legally speaking they are not here.

And they are in a state of outlawry, they are not subject to our jurisdiction until we catch them and subject them to it, whereupon they are to be deported and thus are not permanent resident worthy of being counted.

[CaptainAmerica]

america is in a cold war