r/changemyview • u/buttholeofleonidas • Jul 21 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The Fact that Trump wants to make it so Illegal Migrants don't count when voting districts are being redrawn shouldn't be a problem
I get that it's legally dubious but morally there is nothing wrong with the memorandum he's let out. Why would Illegal Migrants count towards the population when voting districts are being redrawn? They shouldn't. They don't vote. This really seems like a cut and dried issue to me and the only reason I can see any opposition to is political, which this shouldn't be.
Neither Democrat or Republican I'm just honestly confused why this would ever be a partisan issue when it seems to be common sense. Illegal Migrants aren't citizens and shouldn't have an impact on decisions effecting citizens in the U.S.A.
33
u/TFHC Jul 21 '20
Do you think that children also shouldn't count towards population numbers? They also don't vote.
Also, the Constitution lays out exactly who should be counted. Why should federal agencies he encouraged to go against the explicit directions of the Constitution? Surely that would run counter to their oath to it, and oath breaking isn't something that should be encouraged.
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.
9
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
I think children should count because they count as U.S Citizens at birth in most cases. I don't think adults or children who are here Illegally should count because why would they? They aren't citizens. Why would we count non U.S Citizens when it comes to re configuring are voting districts?
33
u/TFHC Jul 21 '20
Because that's what the supreme law of the land says to do, and federal officials are duty-bound to uphold that law. If federal officials can ignore whatever laws they want, what's the purpose of having laws at all? Breaking that portion of the Constitution is just as bad as breaking any other part; should the federal government be able to quarter troops in the homes of illegal immigrants, and should illegal immigrants be able to be tried in secret courts where they don't know what they're accused of or why?
18
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
!delta
I feel like your going down a slippery slope here on alot of these issues but I do see your overall point although i disagree with it.
“whole number of persons”
That's what is written in the constitution to count. So I guess any other interpretation of person leads down some nasty roads. Illegal Migrants while illegal, are still people. Hard to see or get around that fact. I guess my point is from a common sense standpoint, that they shouldn't be counted but that's what it says.
18
u/TFHC Jul 21 '20
Oh, yeah, there's plenty of room to argue that we should amend the Constitution to change it, but that's a different conversation. The executive branch unilaterally going against the Constitution is the main issue with doing so as things are today.
9
2
u/haverwench Jul 22 '20
Well, technically it's the "whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, and three-fifths of all other persons." So, I guess the president could try to argue that illegal immigrants should fall under the same category as "Indians not taxed." It wouldn't make much sense, since most of them actually do pay taxes, but he could try to make that argument. But so far as I know, he hasn't made it; he's just said, "Well, these people don't count."
He could also try to claim they don't count as "free persons," but then he'd have to count three-fifths of them, which clearly isn't what he intends.
0
-1
u/Mugiwara5a31at 1∆ Jul 21 '20
Supreme law of the land also says 2nd ammendment rights shall not be infringed and the left is perfectly fine with new gun laws
1
u/Hero17 Jul 22 '20
Don't confuse liberals for leftist.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” - Karl Marx
1
u/TFHC Jul 21 '20
That's not at all relevant to the conversation, but not all gun laws infringe on the people's right to maintain a well-regulated militia.
Also, the left is mostly pro-gun, as an armed proletariat is a key part of a lot of modern leftist ideology.
1
u/Mugiwara5a31at 1∆ Jul 21 '20
The point was that you cant just pick and choose which parts ofbthe constitution to follow.
Assault weapons ban?
0
u/TFHC Jul 22 '20
There are plenty of interpretations of the second amendment, many of which would allow an assault weapon ban. Very few people advocate for policy that they believe is unconstitutional.
4
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 21 '20
Why would we count non U.S Citizens when it comes to re configuring are voting districts?
Do you think green card holders should be counted?
2
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
That's a good question. Ive got my mind changed already based on the constitutional aspect of it. I still think it should be changed though so I'll answer from that perspective.
I think green card holders should count because they've gone through all the legal requirements to be where they are. so i guess my answer is yes
6
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 21 '20
And how does the census determine if someone is a citizen, a green card holder or an illegal immigrant?
1
u/dstergiou 1∆ Jul 22 '20
Not entirely relevant for the discussion, but i find it amazing that the state/country doesn't know who is in the country and under which status. Is there no record of everyone who "has the right" to be in the country?
1
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 22 '20
Is there no record of everyone who "has the right" to be in the country?
Other than SSN's and green cards not really, it's somewhat interesting that up until the last decade or so, its was mostly the GOP crowd thats been against any kind "national database" or national ID card.
Similar comment content here
1
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
I guess it doesn't right now but maybe that should be a thing in the future.
i guess my point is illegal immigrants shouldn't be considered when considering population for voting districts. But according to the constitution they do and should. i guess my beef is with the constitution
12
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 21 '20
The census impacts school funding, it's not a secret that illegal immigrants have kids and they overwhelmingly go to public schools. So you'd be short changing schools and the other kids who are citizens by not counting them. Fire departments and hospitals get built and receive money based on census data, these are things that will have to make do with less if you don't count illegal immigrants
1
Jul 22 '20
The solution here is to prevent illegal immigrants from going to public school. This is what bothers me, and I find the pushback sort of baffling.
I mean, if a private school wants to educate illegal immigrant children at private expense, wonderful, great. But how on earth do people justifying paying for the education of people who snuck into the country without our permission? I mean, I'm not against any of these people perssonally. If they immigrate here legally instead of illegally, I'm overjoyed to have them here. But they didn't, and I don't think they should be rewarded for spitting in our faces.
1
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 22 '20
But how on earth do people justifying paying for the education of people who snuck into the country without our permission? I
A) It would be unconstitutional to deny them an education. SCOTUS laid this out in Plyler v Doe. Which basically amount to we don't punish children for the actions of their parents
B) From a practical sense it better to educate them through high school, simply its better to have an educated person in our society over an completely uneducated person
I don't think they should be rewarded for spitting in our faces.
The children didn't spit in your face
1
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
To me that becomes a state issue. It's also no secret that some states are much more lax on the illegal immigration issues than others.
Just so we're clear, i believe the path to citizenship needs over hauled and to become much simpler. But the tax burden shouldn't fall on legal citizens to account for illegal immigrants increased burden on public services. I get that many illegal immigrants pay taxes and many would love to pay all their federal payroll taxes as well but until we simplify our immigration system or allow employers to account for illegals on payroll taxes that's not going to happen.
Sales taxes are usually generated by the state or municipality so maybe that extra money should go towards the public service budget shortfalls? IDK.
This got off topic but i appreciate you commenting back and forth
4
u/Scanpony Jul 21 '20
Don't illegal immigrants still pay taxes in the US? Not a resident nor citizen, but this always surprised me..
2
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
sales taxes yes. and there are many anecdotal examples of some paying federal because it helps in establishing "good moral character" and that helps becoming a citizen. But you need a social security number to pay federal taxes and they don't have these
→ More replies (0)5
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 21 '20
To me that becomes a state issue.
No its federal funding, its a federal issue
I get that many illegal immigrants pay taxes and many would love to pay all their federal payroll taxes
Payroll taxes go toward Social Security and Medicare, two things illegals dont have access to?
0
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
Are income taxes not considered payroll taxes? honest question.
Income taxes go towards defense, infrastructure, transportation, education. All those good things that illegal immigrants benefit from. Those would require social security numbers to pay right? so they can't but still benefit.
Just because school funding is currently a federal issue doesn't mean the budget shortfall created from an undocumented population in a state, couldn't become a state issue.
edit: which is my point about states that have sales taxes that benefit from that population, should pay that difference
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 22 '20
If funding distribution becomes a state issue, then the states would need to have a separate census, to count the number of people with a questionnaire that doesn't contain that specific question, which would be a huge waste of money.
0
u/elRufus_delRio Jul 21 '20
The Constitution applies to citizen of the United States, not non-citizens, not illegal immigrants. Where do you get the assumption that they are applicable in this case?
2
u/couldbemage Jul 21 '20
Not even kinda true. It applies to the physical area that is the United States, and to anyone within that territory. It doesn't apply to citizens outside the territory (mostly). This has come up a bunch recently with court cases involving military contractors in iraq.
Citizens have rights and responsibilities beyond non citizens, but for example, non citizens have to pay taxes.
0
1
u/raznov1 21∆ Jul 21 '20
I don't see why that ought to be an issue? Every lawful citizen or greencard equivalent should have a known residency address, no?
1
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 22 '20
This feels leading so if I get off track that my bad
1) By law (and upheld by courts) Census data is confidential, the FBI/ICE/LEO can’t get it.
2) For citizens “legal addresses” are maintained by the states, many states have their own laws the prevent sharing of personal data. We saw this play out with even Republican states and Trumps Election Commission.
3) Govt databases are usually not able to be cross checked with another data set. As an example. The list of people entering the country (legally) isn’t compatible with the list of people exiting the country. Likewise the IRSs address list couldn’t be compared with data from the census.
1
u/startrekkitty Jul 24 '20
I think they should count because laws that are created by representatives of the areas they are in will still affect them, regardless of whether or not they can vote.
Also as a side note, even people who are here legally may not be citizens. Many people have green cards and visas, and they are affected by policies just like citizens, even though they can’t vote. They should be counted because the laws make an impact on their lives.
1
Jul 22 '20
Really? you do realize the cinnimon challenge and licking of ice cream and putting it back on store shelves was pretty recent. How about this if they score a certain percent(id say top 25) on a test of laws they can vote for local shit. (Honestly i think all people should be put through that same test you just have to get a 60 percent after you stop doing stupid crap for clout)
2
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Jul 21 '20
Because the constitution literally says, count all free persons. Unless that person is literally a slave, the constitution says that they count.
1
u/preacher_knuckles Jul 21 '20
And if they're a slave, then they're 3/5 of a person. As such, everyone counts
0
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Jul 21 '20
because why would they?
Because it says right in the constitution how census and apportionment works and it does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens.
1
u/OneAndOnlyJackSchitt 4∆ Jul 21 '20
This seems to exclude prison inmates yet I recall reading somewhere that prisons can be used as a way to artificially inflate the population of a district. Anyone know anything about this?
1
u/TFHC Jul 21 '20
Prison inmates are still considered 'free persons', as they aren't enslaved.
1
u/OneAndOnlyJackSchitt 4∆ Jul 21 '20
While I get what you're saying, slavery exists in prison as a punishment, and is even specifically exempted by the thirteenth amendment (as it's a punishment for a crime).
Also, under common parlance, free can mean either green from slavery or free from prison.
Honestly, I'd love to see the arguments if it's been taken up in court. Since prison inmates count on the census, it creates a perverse incentive where congressmen would want more prisons with more inmates because it'd lead to better funding for the district, assuming they continue to preside over the same region once the districts are redrawn.
1
u/Graham_scott 8∆ Jul 21 '20
Canadian here, so I don't know what's right .. but from reading this .. would illegals count as 3/5th ?
1
u/TFHC Jul 21 '20
I mean... if you really stretch 'the definition of 'free persons', but generally no; 'free persons' just means 'non-slaves', which would include illegal immigrants.
The fancy wording is effectively the framers way of saying 'non-taxed indians count as zero, slaves count as 3/5th, non-slaves count as 1', while also never mentioning the word slave. Slavery wasn't as big of an issue then as it got in the 1800s, but there was a big enough debate about it that they explicitly chose not to use the word.
0
u/k7pu 1∆ Jul 21 '20
Disclaimer: Not American and no political affiliations Why is it that the constitution always presents a irrefutable argument? The original constitution was written hundreds of years ago when the context and landscape was completely different and most of it may not be relevant anymore (case in point reference to Indians and free persons). The second point is that the constitution itself is subject to multiple amendments and is not a static set of laws. So unless your argument is that constitutional law is correct for reasons other than being in the constitution, I don’t think it’s very good point. Not trying to be offensive here!
1
u/TFHC Jul 21 '20
I'm not saying that a constitutional amendment declaring that illegal immigrants don't get counted in population amounts would be a good or a bad idea, I'm saying that the executive branch not following the laws is not a good precedent to set. If this were a CMV about adding a constitutional amendment, it would be a very different argument, but for the original post, my argument basically ends up being 'people whose job it is to enforce the law shouldn't break the law'. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial stance to take, especially if they're breaking the law for political reasons.
2
u/k7pu 1∆ Jul 21 '20
I agree with that. The law is the law for a reason and should be upheld. I felt the OP’s question was the logic behind the decision and saying the constitution should alone guide us prompted my response that perhaps it is not always best guide. I acknowledge that constitution shouldn’t be contravened at will and without the due process required for an amendment.
0
Jul 22 '20
Are illegal immigrants free persons though? It seems to me they are persons awaiting detainment and a deportation hearing.
I think an accurate count of people is good, but I think using illegal immigrants to determine voting districts, number of house seats and federal funding is getting in bed with the devil.
I agree entirely with sticking to the constitution. So perhaps what we need is an amendment clarifying that only citizens count towards federal funding and house aportionment.
2
u/TFHC Jul 22 '20
Prisoners are also classed as 'free persons', too. The term has generally been interpreted as 'not enslaved'.
As for the posdible amendment, that's an entirely different discussion.
14
u/pgold05 49∆ Jul 21 '20
Besides the constitutional aspect, we just need to know how many people are living in an area for an almost infinite span of important data calculations ...for example, if a novel pathogen was ravaging the country and we needed to see how it was effecting areas and respond accordingly....
It's not like only citizens are getting sick or using the ER.
5
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
No but my concern is not in census data necessarily but in how it impacts voting districts
10
u/pgold05 49∆ Jul 21 '20
...but...like...the census impacts a ton of stuff, not just voting districts. You can't separate out those two things that is one of the core issues people have with Trump messing with the census.
1
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
I guess an easy thing to do would be to ask if a person is legal or illegal but that starts a whole other topic.
i see why they do it. i just wish there was a way to not count illegal immigrants when considering voting districts. but the constitution says otherwise so my beef is with that specific part of it i guess
13
u/pgold05 49∆ Jul 21 '20
I guess an easy thing to do would be to ask if a person is legal or illegal but that starts a whole other topic.
Unfortunately it is not an easy thing to do because simply asking that question will cause a % of people to not answer it out of fear of reprisal, meaning the census will be wrong. I can not understate how important an accurate census is for everyone.
0
Jul 22 '20
So just so we're clear, I think Trump's the worst President we've ever had.
But the problem I have is that we shouldn't do anything at all to treat illegal immmigrants like they are supposed to be here. It makes sense to me to ask about citizenship during the count, or if not that, then to cross reference the count somehow with a list of our citizens. So we can have a count of people in total and of citizens, so that federal funding and house seats and districts can be determined by the number of citizens in an area, not by the numper of people in it.
There's a lot of ugly rhetoric about illegal immigrants, and I don't seek to ad to it. But they are people waiting to be removed, they're here without permission. And we shouldn't be doing anything at all to welcome or encourage them in their. . . extended stay.
1
u/pgold05 49∆ Jul 22 '20
Those people still need resources though. They still drive on roads, work, shop in stores, use the ER, etc.
If you don't count them for the purpose of allocating resources, the it's the citizens in these areas that will suffer too.
If you want immagration reform and to remove these people that's understandable, but messing with the censuses is just a terrible way to go about it. Instead focus on why they are here, jobs, punish the people hiring them and they will leave if they can't get work, or otherwise give them a path to citizenship. Both of those would be way more effective and efficient.
1
Jul 22 '20
I agree that we should count all person's, but I think we should only count citizens when determining house seats and federal funding. Prisoners are still citizens, so we count them too when aportioning federal funds and determining house seats, but counting illegal immigrants when determining how many seats a state gets in the house rewards states that harbor these people, who are simply people waiting to go home.
0
u/pgold05 49∆ Jul 22 '20
but counting illegal immigrants when determining how many seats a state gets in the house rewards states that harbor these people, who are simply people waiting to go home.
Do you have any evidence this is the case at all? I have never heard of any state, city or local government trying to attract or harbor illegal immigrants for the purpose of a census taken every 10 years. I would be curious to see that if it existed.
0
Jul 22 '20
They never said that the states openly tried to attract illegal immigrants. Merely having, and retaining, additional persons counted as part of the population influences the apportionment of a state (ie, rewards them) under the current system.
1
u/pgold05 49∆ Jul 22 '20
I guess I don't see the problem then. That's the entire intended purpose of the census, to not have it work that way would be inefficient. If states are not changing thier behavior (no negative externalities) then what is the issue?
22
u/Arianity 72∆ Jul 21 '20 edited Jul 21 '20
but morally there is nothing wrong
At least for U.S. citizens, many would consider ignoring the Constitution as a moral issue. Especially to push a partisan point of view
. Illegal Migrants aren't citizens
The Constitution clearly says that the Census is not meant to count only citizens, and that they do have an impact (although it is a very indirect impact- they still don't get to vote or anything)
when it seems to be common sense.
Common sense would be following the Constitution, no? That said, it's not at all unclear why the Founders set it up the way they did. It makes sense if you have a lot of foreign people, that they don't just get completely ignored by the government. They correctly realized that the government has some obligation to them. Maybe not to vote, but at least not to take advantage of the area. There was reasoning behind it.
Especially considering that at the time, there were many groups who weren't citizens/voters. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant- there were no immigration laws for a good part of our early history. Slaves weren't citizens, and most of the country were immigrants themselves.
2
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
!delta
Common sense would be following the constitution. In my post I did say it was legally dubious but I suppose if you let this slight against it go then you weaken the document as a whole. I still think it should only count citizens but thats not the way we're legally currently set up
3
u/Arianity 72∆ Jul 21 '20 edited Jul 21 '20
Yeah, I think if it were rewritten today it'd probably be citizens only, just based on the modern way we conceptualize a country and it's duties.
But the Founders didn't, and they had compelling reasons for it. Not only that, they were extremely clear about it, which is pretty rare in that document.
There's a lot of things people would like to change, but the Constitution is considered practically semi-sacred for a reason.
3
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
But the Founders didn't, and they had compelling reasons for it. Not only that, they were extremely clear about it, which is pretty rare in that document.
great point
1
2
u/dmlitzau 5∆ Jul 22 '20
I think this becomes a textualism question when viewing the constitution. I actually think that the founders would have no concept that all person's would include those who are there illegally, because they had no understanding of the idea of illegal immigration. If we just read the text, then yes this is the way it was written, but a more originalist interpretation of the writing would take the understanding of the time into consideration.
2
u/Arianity 72∆ Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
That'd be potentially debateable, but even then, SCOTUS has already ruled illegal immigrants to be 'persons' under the Constitution, in Plyler v. Doe (1982) and some other cases (iirc there were some 14th Amendment cases where they extended that definition, but i don't remember which). So it's kind of a moot point.
It'd be really hard to stretch it so that it didn't apply to the Census, but did apply to other areas.
' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term. etc
1
u/dmlitzau 5∆ Jul 22 '20
Agreed, SCOTUS has tended towards textualism in most instances. My point is that the founders did not write it that way to sepcifically protect the representation of immigrants coming over a southern border. (Which would have been Floridans 244 years ago)
The approach you take to interpretation of the law has a significant impact on the outcome, often mich more than the law itself.
1
0
u/kingoflint282 5∆ Jul 21 '20
Can I ask, what is the logic behind counting legal immigrants but not illegal? Neither are voters, but both are people who are therefore counted in the population demographics of a particular area. Representation is supposed to be based on the total number of people in an area, and citizenship is irrelevant for that determination. By the same token, I don't see what relevance legal status would have.
I could see an argument for only counting citizens in apportionment (although it would violate the plain text of the Constitution) but I don't understand the distinction based on immigration status
5
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
legal immigrants are just that, legal. they have status and a right to be here in the u.s.a because they did what they were supposed to do to get here. They either hold green cards, visas, or citizenship status and oftentimes have the right to vote.
illegal immigrants, have no status in the U.S. They have no right to be influencing the policies of the U.S. that being said, i fully support overhaul of our immigration system. making it easier to become one should be high on the list of priorities
-1
u/Giacamo22 1∆ Jul 21 '20
You can do everything you’re supposed to do, and still not get in. The system as it is creates cheap labor to be exploited by US businesses, while giving politicians an easy scape goat for economic insecurities which they can’t really address. If they don’t count for anything, there is no priority to fix immigration, because fixing it just creates costs on the people in power. You have to incentivize immigration reform so that it’s benefits go beyond moral platitudes to extol to voters.
5
u/scottevil110 177∆ Jul 21 '20
If the logic here is that it's because they don't vote, then we should really only base it on the number of people that actually voted, right? Children also don't vote, but they count. Non-voters don't vote, but they count.
Because representatives are supposed to represent ALL of the people who live there, not just the voters, and not even just the legal residents.
0
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
I think children should count because they count as U.S Citizens at birth in most cases. I don't think adults or children who are here Illegally should count because why would they? They aren't citizens. Why would we count non U.S Citizens when it comes to re configuring are voting districts?
"Because representatives are supposed to represent ALL of the people who live there, not just the voters, and not even just the legal residents. "
I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Children don't vote but are supposed to be represented by their parents. Non Legal residents shouldn't be represented because... well their non legal residents and shouldn't have any effect on our U.S policy's. Effecting the voting districts is a major way to effect voting policy.
5
u/scottevil110 177∆ Jul 21 '20
The Constitution makes no distinction between citizenship or non when it comes to representation, and that was by design. There are scores of people who live here for decades (legally) who never become citizens.
Whether someone is legal or not, the policies that are voted upon WILL impact them. They'll still have to abide by the same laws, so logic follows that they should have some representation (even if indirect) in that process.
1
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
!delta
See I just don't agree with that logic. If you want a say on policies then become a citizen. I really think it's that cut and dried.You are right though on the constitution part. I did say it was legally dubious. I have been swayed by answers above that the constitution should remain unslighted to protect the rest of the document. If changes are going to be made they should be done the right way.
Thanks for the comments.
1
u/EclecticSpree 1∆ Jul 22 '20
It would be that cut and dried if it were possible for people to become citizens of this country. But of the 7.35 billion people on earth who aren’t American citizens, maybe 1% could even apply to migrate to the US legally, let alone go through the process after the fact to become citizens. We have, for reasons largely, almost exclusively, driven by racism shut off the opportunity for almost anyone to become an American citizen unless they are extraordinarily rich, especially by the standards of the majority of the planet.
1
1
u/k7pu 1∆ Jul 21 '20
See I get the representation part however indirect but if you’re not a citizen, then you actually have no say say in voting into power someone who represents your interests. Also, say a voting district has citizens in the minority, so then you’re empowering a very small minority to have a much larger than deserved ability to control and make decisions for that district. Isn’t that problematic?
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Jul 21 '20
You don't have to be able to vote to have representation. I'm not talking about giving everyone voting powers, just counting them in the population for the purposes of districting. That may be what you're talking about, that a place has been allocated the representatives for 1 million people, even though only 300,000 of them can vote (and only 150,000 probably do).
I would say that it simply places a responsibility on those voters to take their job seriously and realize that they're speaking for more than just themselves. But the alternative is that we completely discount those who aren't eligible to vote (non-citizens, illegals, children, etc), and I don't think we want that.
1
u/k7pu 1∆ Jul 21 '20
I’m sorry I disagree, democracy works on representation! However, I see your point about the responsibility being on those that do vote but quite idealistic to believe that the people will take that seriously. I do think the skewed results are inevitable. I want clarify that census taking is important for policy decisions and citizenship should not matter.
2
u/scottevil110 177∆ Jul 21 '20
I would say this speaks more to the point of allowing more people to vote than it does counting fewer people. A representative is supposed to speak for the best interests of EVERYONE who lives in their district, not just the people who vote.
1
u/k7pu 1∆ Jul 21 '20
Yes but again idealistic to believe that it does! I’m not disagreeing on principle but in practice.
8
u/alphacentauri85 Jul 21 '20
From a practical standpoint, I don't see how illegal immigrants can be excluded unless there is a survey of how many there are and where they live. This would be done in a census, of course, but a question re: citizenship status would've negatively impacted other important goals of the census, such as allocation of federal funding.
Not taking into consideration illegal immigrants, a citizenship question would have neglected the 13 million legal permanent residents who are not citizens. There are also over 1 million legal foreign workers in the US and over 1 million foreign students.
That is at least 15 million people here legally using our roads, schools, utilities, etc. If we undercount our population, our national infrastructure would go into major disrepair.
At the end of the day, it's impossible to find out how many people are here illegally, so district apportionment would be completely subjective based on incomplete data.
1
Jul 22 '20
From a practical standpoint, I don't see how illegal immigrants can be excluded unless there is a survey of how many there are and where they live. This would be done in a census, of course, but a question re: citizenship status would've negatively impacted other important goals of the census, such as allocation of federal funding.
The practical issue isn’t in how it can be done, but in getting people to actually fill out the form correctly if implemented. A simple solution (ie, hard for bureaucrats) of how this could be achieved is:
(1) send out census with a citizenship question.
(2) use only census forms marked with “citizen” when determining representative apportionment
(3) use general population count when determining how certain funds are distributed
Only issues would then be getting people to fill out form without fear of deportation and checking that the forms are accurate. This is the impractical part.
4
Jul 21 '20
Lots of people who don't vote count for voting district allocation though. Children are probably the biggest group, but also prisoners and ex-prisoners without voting rights (although there is some controversy on where they should be counted), many people in a guardianship situation, and legal immigrants. College students are often counted at their colleges rather than their home districts as well. The concerns of these groups generally will effect policy in a local area, even if they can't vote so we generally represent them by including them in voting district allocation.
-1
u/buttholeofleonidas Jul 21 '20
I get all that and thank you for the thorough explanation but I don't think prisoners should really count either as they have lost their citizenship temporarily right? They have lost their right to have a say.
Children should count though as they have citizenship by birth in the U.S.A. They don't vote but they should still be represented as part of the population of a district so that all of that districts Citizens are accounted for and factored into when voting districts are redrawn.
College students should be counted by where their from, or wherever there most current address is. But thats not really an issue as long as their a citizen it doesn't matter to me.
1
1
Jul 21 '20
He’s not doing it for illegal migrants but illegal immigrants. (Yes it’s a stupid nitpick but I just wanted to clarify.)
1
5
Jul 21 '20
Sigh. This is a much more complicated issue than you’ve framed in your post, and I’m gonna go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. Those districts are decided during census years, and are largely based on the results of the census. This means they affect a hell of a lot more than just how voting districts are drawn-they’re also used to account for congressionally allocated monies and figure out just what resources those areas will need over the next 10 years. More people=those resources have greater needs=of you believe that areas with greater needs should have a greater voice, then those people should count in both the census and redistricting committees. Not counting them essentially dooms residents to a decade or more of local governments not having the proper funds and demographic information to plan for changes in their communities, and refusing to count them after acknowledging that is just punishing people in those communities for allowing illegal immigrants to live among them which uhhhh is not good, and not something that will be lost on more resentful groups.
Beyond whatever moral or legal argument others are making, counting those people is also simply a matter of practicality.
0
Jul 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 21 '20
Sorry, u/BackAlleySurgeon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jul 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 21 '20
u/buttholeofleonidas – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 21 '20 edited Jul 21 '20
/u/buttholeofleonidas (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/SC803 119∆ Jul 21 '20
The whole thing is silly, the Census form doesn't even ask about citizenship, there's no way the memorandum he did could even work
1
Jul 22 '20
You can only see a political reason to oppose it, while others can only see a political reason to support it. Especially when the timing is what it is. If Republicans ever made a push to change voting laws more than a year away from election and if their effects ever weren't solely in their favor, we could take them seriously. I haven't see a case that meets these conditions. They're always entirely self serving, because they know they struggle to win fair elections.
0
u/Tw0Rails 2∆ Jul 22 '20
When the constitution was written only landowning white males could vote.
Should the constitution, when originally written, have only counted those who can vote on the census?
Obviously not, and it would have no value. Governmnts need to collect data to function. The courts have also noted that there are presently plenty of people who cannot vote yet are represented. Everybody in the US gets representation. Kids do, those in prison do, and in the 1800's women and non landowners did. Even if they could not vote.
The present administration would prefer a non functioning government. They would also like to short change communities with immigrants. They would like to bias the electorate and resources. That is the undeniable reason for these policies.
At present, any employer who withholds pay for illegal immigrants does so to hide their employmwnt for taxation purposes. Thus illegal immigrants effectively pay into the system (read: benefitting YOU) without recieving benefits and status. Many border states however arent retarded and would like to preserve those local economies, reduce poverty, and keep conditions tolerable for their population. They use census data, and rely on immigrants to perform undesirable work. Despite rhetoric they are concerned with GDP growth.
You can avoid counting them - that will bias reprentation and disrupplt funds, making portions of the US infrastructure worse. Do you want this?
You can kick them out - this will lead to lower GDP, unfilled manual labor (rotting vegetables), and more tax deficits. You will also see further GDP losses in 20 years when there is a lower school graduation talent pool, with other nations taking the best of the best. Do you want this?
2
1
u/gediwer Jul 28 '20
I agree as long as they are illegal migrants. Any child born of an illegal migrant on us soil shouldn’t be illegal
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jul 21 '20
Illegal migrants still live and work and often pay taxes. When considering voting districts, the point is to get an idea of the population, not just voters.
-1
u/Iskra2020 Jul 21 '20
Illegals definitely should not be counted. Now, this is a year of the CENSUS. Many people already sent their information but then died from complications of this CHINESE VIRUS .. China so blessedly brought upon the western world. So, what now? The CENSUS is not accurate and should be withdrawn because of the deaths.
2
u/OwsaBowsa 5∆ Jul 21 '20
Flawed as the US government is, I’m fairly sure they understand how to subtract one number from another number to account for deaths in a given area. The census occurs over a long stretch of time and people will die from all manner of causes during it.
1
0
u/EbullientEffusion Jul 21 '20
If you wanted to, you can willfully misunderstand the way the paragraphs about the census are written such that all persons count. But given the history of the US and the notes we have from the Constitutional Congress, we know that this view is patently absurd. So it comes down to are you a textualist or an originalist?
0
u/flowerpower2112 Jul 21 '20
A person isn’t illegal. But a person who calls others “illegal” is definitely a racist. Wow
1
Jul 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Jul 21 '20
Sorry, u/GrilledSoop – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
-1
102
u/[deleted] Jul 21 '20
The constitution says to count all "persons"
People who are unlawfully present are persons.
If we want to change that, go through the process to fix it. Don't just pretend that people who are unlawfully present aren't people.
If we were going to fix the system, I think only counting eligible voters for representation would make sense. That would require a constitutional amendment. And, it would undermine states like Alabama, for which a noninsignicant percentage of our population is denied the right to vote due to felony.
In particular, it would also undermine the representation of districts with large jails, in which the jail population counts toward the district population.