Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Friday July 24 2020, @09:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the counting-is-hard-when-it-counts dept.

With No Final Say, Trump Wants To Change Who Counts For Dividing Up Congress' Seats:

President Trump released a memorandum Tuesday that calls for an unprecedented change to the constitutionally mandated count of every person living in the country — the exclusion of unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to divide up seats in Congress among the states.

The memo instructs Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Commerce Department, to include in the legally required report of census results to the president "information permitting the President, to the extent practicable" to leave out the number of immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization from the apportionment count.

But the move by the president, who does not have final authority over the census, is more likely to spur legal challenges and political spectacle in the last months before this year's presidential election than a transformation of the once-a-decade head count, which has been disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic.

[...] Since the first U.S. census in 1790, both U.S. citizens and noncitizens — regardless of immigration status — have been included in the country's official population counts.

The fifth sentence of the Constitution specifies that "persons" residing in the states should be counted every 10 years to determine each state's share of seats in the House of Representatives. The 14th Amendment, which ended the counting of an enslaved person as "three fifths" of a free person, goes further to require the counting of the "whole number of persons in each state."

It is Congress — not the president — that Article 1, Section 2 of the country's founding document empowers to carry out the "actual enumeration" of the country's population in "such manner as they shall by law direct."

In Title 2 of the U.S. Code, Congress detailed its instructions for the president to report to lawmakers the tally of the "whole number of persons" living in each state for the reapportionment of House seats. In Title 13, Congress established additional key dates for the "tabulation of total population."


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @09:56AM (31 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @09:56AM (#1025708)

    [go ahead and mod me off-topic if you feel like it. I'm not going to bother making the link explicit.]

    I am really annoyed when I hear someone declaring that they don't vote.
    whatever the reason, you're an idiot if you actively choose not to vote.

    you should vote, and you should vote for the choice you are happiest with, not with whoever you think is more likely to succeed.

    oh, there were 3 reasonable people, and an idiot, and the idiot got 27% and won?
    no problem, talk to the voters of the other reasonable people and compromise, then decide whether it's worth asking for a resignation from the idiot, or whether you can wait for four years.
    then vote for the people who will fix this problem with the voting system.

    oh, too many people are stupid and they won't vote for your choice?
    talk to them.
    if you can't convince them, it means democracy is working against you.
    at that point you have some serious issues that you need to solve (move to another country, try to break democracy, fight for better education, etc).

    but, if you choose not to vote, keep in mind that politicians can change the laws to a point where they can take away your freedom.
    afterwards taking as much money from you as they want is easy.
    if that's easier to understand.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Friday July 24 2020, @10:38AM (11 children)

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @10:38AM (#1025714) Journal

      Yes, it is essential that people go through the motions, but keep in mind how empty that is. It's been over 20 years since the US exit polls matched the alleged results for the elections. It's been almost as many since the US election process fulfilled the UN's requirements for open and fair elections. Mainstream media continues to spin it as the polls being wrong. Yet at the same time, every time it has been attempted, the individual US states have not been able to prove in any way, shape, or form the veracity of the alleged tallies from the election. So, since 1) the polls can be verified and 2) the election results have not been able to be verified, it looks much more like "irregularities" in managing the election despite the spin from the media.

      Last time around, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were examined in detail. None of the three could reproduce the tallies they alleged were the bona fide results, not even the one state out of the three which had used paper ballots. That's how bad things stand. Throwing money at the problem alone won't fix it, but it can't be fixed without a lot of investment in cleaning out the current workflow. Moscow Mitch blocked that money last year back when there was still time to fix or ammeliorate the problem. Now it is way too late to do anything for this current cycle except watch the trainwreck.

      Then on top of that there is the outright fraud presented in the form of electronic "voting": https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-26/DEF%20CON%2026%20voting%20village%20report.pdf [defcon.org]
      https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-25/DEF%20CON%2025%20voting%20village%20report.pdf [defcon.org]
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-data-security-expert-fears-u-s-voting-will-be-hacked-11587747159 [wsj.com]
      https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/16/voting-security-crisis-q-a-1466704 [politico.com]

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:01PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:01PM (#1025738)

        I always lie to the pollsters. Stop believing that their numbers are somehow more trustworthy than any other random stat you see anywhere else.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday July 24 2020, @01:19PM (9 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @01:19PM (#1025749) Journal

          Stop believing that their numbers are somehow more trustworthy than any other random stat you see anywhere else.

          Like actual vote tallies, for example?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:35PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:35PM (#1025754)

            In case you were just born yesterday, there have been myriad problems with vote tabulation throughout history. High-tech has added new layers of potential problems, including "hacking".

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday July 24 2020, @02:39PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @02:39PM (#1025785) Journal
              I knew of those problems when I wrote my post. Perhaps you should reread it with that new information in mind.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:54PM (#1025817)

                You get 2 upmods sir.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:57PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:57PM (#1025818)

                Apologies- my post was meant for previous AC. Human error; corrections not allowed.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @06:19PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @06:19PM (#1025877)

                But, khallow was born yesterday, he's a Millenniall.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday July 25 2020, @05:33AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 25 2020, @05:33AM (#1026089) Journal
              Since several people seem to be having the same misconceptions, I'll point out that the "problems" above mean that exit polling may still be a more accurate estimate of the vote than the official tally of the vote. Even with people like the previous AC who claim they deliberately lie to polls.
            • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday July 26 2020, @09:06AM (2 children)

              by Mykl (1112) on Sunday July 26 2020, @09:06AM (#1026503)

              there have been myriad problems with vote tabulation throughout history

              Oh, OK. I guess we don't need to worry about trying to fix it then.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @02:53PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @02:53PM (#1027116)

                No, by all means, keep on worrying. That approach has worked so well so far. Sorry for the sarcasm, but as far as I can tell society is full of problems that never get fixed. Do you have any suggestions for fixing the problem?

                • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday July 27 2020, @11:25PM

                  by Mykl (1112) on Monday July 27 2020, @11:25PM (#1027387)

                  Do you have any suggestions for fixing the problem?

                  Yes.

                  1. Get rid of electronic voting. It's proven to be too unreliable and non-verifiable. I know that irregularities predate it, but there are far worse irregularities with e-votes than without
                  2. Stop getting private companies to supply most of the equipment and logistics for voting. This should be managed by an independent government body (like the Australian Electoral Commission)
                  3. Have your independent body draw the electorate maps, not the incumbents. Remove Gerrymandering. This is what most western civilizations do
                  4. Move your voting to weekends, where more people are able to make it to the polls, and more volunteers are able to assist with ensuring that voting runs smoothly
                  5. Leave each state to determine what they want to do for state-level elections, but have one single consistent approach to voting across all states for Federal Elections (i.e. have the Federal Election run Federally!)

                  These are a start. Going further, please improve the quality of the election process by introducing preferential or runoff voting.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:05AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:05AM (#1025716)

      Don't vote for an incorrect candidate. Only vote for media approved candidates.

      • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:29PM

        by Opportunist (5545) on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:29PM (#1026230)

        I vote Cthulhu. It's time we stop voting for the lesser evil.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by rigrig on Friday July 24 2020, @11:06AM

      by rigrig (5129) Subscriber Badge <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Friday July 24 2020, @11:06AM (#1025717) Homepage

      I am really annoyed when I hear someone declaring that they don't vote.
      whatever the reason, you're an idiot if you actively choose not to vote

      Yes they are, so just look on the bright side: that's one less idiotic vote.

      I tend to encourage non-voters: "That's great, means my vote carries more weight!"

      vote for the people who will fix this problem with the voting system.

      That'll never happen, because the only people who can fix the voting system are the ones with a negative interest in fixing it, as it just got them elected. (Which might be framed as "It apparently isn't that broken after all, or we wouldn't have gotten elected")

      --
      No one remembers the singer.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:30PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:30PM (#1025752)

      I am really annoyed when I hear someone declaring that they don't vote.
      whatever the reason, you're an idiot if you actively choose not to vote.

      I'm equally annoyed by people by people that proudly proclaim they voted D or R.

      Vote third party, people. It's not an if, but a certainty that your largest two "democratic" parties are working against you.

      So, if you choose to vote D or D, keep in mind that both parties have introduced laws that take away your freedom.
      So they're now in a position to take as much money from you as they want easily. If that's easier to understand.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:23PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:23PM (#1025862)

        This is a huge part of the problem.

        STOP voting D just because they are D, or voting R just because they are R. Vote for people, not parties.

        Voting for a party (either D or R) just lets the party believe they have your vote "locked up" and so they no longer have to try to sway you.

        And if none of the candidates are suitable, then write in "None of the above".

        If all the people who don't vote went to vote, and all wrote in "None of the above", it would send a huge message to both the D and the R sides that they are both screwing up royally.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @01:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @01:08AM (#1026380)

          Pretty amusing how desperate the narrative is to repeat 2016 levels of apathy and anger.

          Oh the US is angry all right, but apathy has been burned out by all the COVID fever and fascist flamethrowers.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2020, @01:54PM (5 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @01:54PM (#1025763) Journal

      I do vote. I've voted in 15 elections so far. I'm not voting for either major party's presidential candidate, because some assholes think a fascist far right psycho in the other party means I they can justify a right wing rapist in their party.

      The pattern of "republicans do horrible shit, elect a democrat and it becomes the new normal" is gonna change this time, I also think you're naive. We've been aimed of a cliff that way since at least 1980, and frankly I'm tired of arguing over whether we should floor it or coast the rest of the way there.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:55AM (4 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:55AM (#1026035) Journal

        At this point it's a bit academic, isn't it? Biden has my vote (and I may need to drink alcohol for the first time in over a decade to pull this off...) for the sheer, selfish, pragmatic reason that it may give me JUST that much more time to make my escape over the Canadian border the legal way, but IMO the US is a dead letter...

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @06:19AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @06:19AM (#1026097)

          I hope you are saving up your money. Short of already having a job or having one of the skills/certifications/degrees on a special list, you're going to need some 5 figures in liquid assets.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:12PM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:12PM (#1026221) Journal

            I am, yes. It's damn near impossible but I'm doing it. And if it helps I'm a nationally-certified pharmacy tech in the US as of this February (actually I got a perfect 1600 on the qualifier...) so that should count for something...

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @08:30PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @08:30PM (#1026742)

              https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/eligibility/federal-skilled-workers.html [canada.ca]

              I believe a pharmacy tech would qualify as a "B," but you'd have to check. Checking with an immigration attorney sooner rather than later would probably be helpful to set proper expectations and add direction to your actions.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 26 2020, @09:36PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday July 26 2020, @09:36PM (#1026783) Journal

                Sounds about right, yes...I've been on that site for a few months now trying to puzzle out what exactly will be needed. Looks like I need a police cert/identity check with fingerprints, medical exam, and a job offer, as there is no way in hell I'll have 13000 beaverbucks saved up by this time next year absent some small miracle.

                I'm moving to Buffalo (NY) in a few weeks, which makes the medical exam part easy as there's a qualified doctor in Kenmore, but will have to go to NYC for some of the other stuff. Oh well, it'll be nostalgic and a good excuse to see my mother and sister again :)

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by PaperNoodle on Friday July 24 2020, @02:03PM (1 child)

      by PaperNoodle (10908) on Friday July 24 2020, @02:03PM (#1025767)

      Whenever I talk to someone that wants me to vote, I like to say I will vote against them to see if they actually care about voting or if its really about voting "their way".

      Looks like Trump Train 2020. Where do I buy a MAGA hat? He looks like the law and order candidate while democrats are either falling asleep (Biden) or too busy shooting themselves in the foot (almost literally) to 'stand against Trump' (Portland, Chicago, Seattle, NYC, Milwaukee).

      So if you ask me, I'd rather not vote for the party that will allow their communities to burn because they lost an election. Never give in to a childs temper tantrum. Children need to learn that throwing a fit and burning down the house is not a way to handle being told "No". Parenting 101.

      Off to the polls!

      --
      B3
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:31PM (#1025866)

        So if you ask me, I'd rather not vote for the party that will allow their communities to burn because they lost an election. Never give in to a childs temper tantrum. Children need to learn that throwing a fit and burning down the house is not a way to handle being told "No". Parenting 101.

        And this is exactly what we have going on here at the moment. We have all the low to mid 20 somethings, the generation that was never told no their entire life, finally exiting mommy and daddy's cocoon and suddenly discovering that the real world:

        1. Often tells you: no;
        2. Does not give you a trophy just for showing up and sitting on the bench;
        3. Does not care whether you think you've been oppressed in the past
        4. Will only give you what you go out and earn for yourself
        5. etc.

        And the result is we have a whole generation of pansies now shouting and yelling in the streets because they've discovered that they have to actually make something of themselves rather than have everything handed to them on a silver platter, and they don't like it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:51PM (#1025795)

      Hand your slave a plate of stale bread and a glass of water and they'll have you killed.
      Let the slave vote between the stale bread and the glass of water and they'll call you Mr. President.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:08PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:08PM (#1025820)

      What you miss is this...

      I'm really okay with whoever you guys want to vote into office. My faith is in the inherent justice of the universe - in that everybody will _ultimately_ get what they deserve.

      Sure I have an opinion, and most of the time it differs from the winning side. Never has my vote caused my side to win, so why waste the effort?

      If you guys of the voting majority opt us into corruption, oppression, tyranny, poverty, pollution or revolution, I will accompany you through it. It is more important to me that you learn from your mistakes than that I win. (And what exactly does anyone ever actually win in the final analysis, since in the long run we are all dead?)

      Moreover it may be that I am mistaken in my opinion. Usually I can argue both side. Take the "pro-choice"/"pro-life" debate. My opinion is like the Biblical endorsement of both sides when it gives the hint "Choose life". But why should others be forced to suffer the consequences of my deficient understanding?

      It is a mistake to believe that your opinion is never mistaken. Hence the "value" of a vote is moot.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:25PM (#1025829)

        Time heals all wounds, it also wounds all heels.

    • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:25PM (1 child)

      by Opportunist (5545) on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:25PM (#1026228)

      Ok, who should I vote for? The idiot that already proved without a doubt that he's a narcissist dimwit whose ego needs its own air force one, or the one that couldn't prove it yet but what I've seen so far from him doesn't exactly make me assume that he could find his own ass with both hands if he had an advisor guiding his hands.

      If you want me to choose, give me a choice FFS!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:29PM (#1026229)

        Kanye West?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:12AM (55 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:12AM (#1025719)

    Disclaimer: I'm not a U.S. citizen or resident, and I'm not particularly well acquainted with U.S. law regarding elections. Also, I don't engage in politics at all.

    But... isn't the entire article just the weirdest example of sophistry you've ever seen?

    First, the premise of the story is that the U.S. President seems to be of the opinion that only legal residents of the country should be considered in the political process, and that this is something we should all be up in arms about. I'm sorry, but isn't that how it works in every country? Isn't that the only sane way for the system to work??

    Second, the author seems to believe that using the word "unauthorized" is appropriate when it comes to people who refuse to follow lawful procedures, in this case for entering a country. Surely, the correct word would be"criminal", or perhaps "illegal?"

    This is nothing but a blatant attempt at manipulating the reader by using clearly inappropriate terms to describe reality. How about we turn bank robbers into "unauthorized lenders"? And violent rioters into "protesters?" Oh, wait...

    Now, the author may have a point with regards to who is and isn't authorized to validate a state census (the President vs. Congress), but again, is seems the President has just repeated what is already written in the U.S. constitution.

    The crux of the matter is whether the term "persons residing in" should be interpreted to include "persons obtaining illegal access to." I would think the answer to that would be pretty obvious, but then I'm not an American.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Friday July 24 2020, @11:45AM (7 children)

      by looorg (578) on Friday July 24 2020, @11:45AM (#1025723)

      When I was reading this I was thinking the same. But there could be local differences between different types of elections, there are in some other countries. Such as you don't need to be a citizen to vote in local elections, just national elections. Just living in the place for a long enough period of time might be enough for local elections -- that said they are still, most likely, required to be legal or have the right to be there, they just don't have to be citizens.

      That said if this is a normal census of the population you would want to know everybody, or have as much data as possible, you just want to separate the numbers into a legal residence/citizens and another column (or whatever) for the non-legal residence. But it would be odd to go through the trouble of performing a complete census of the population and then just ignore to count a significant part of the population, at least in certain states. Since the census will be used for other things then just dividing up political seats. For the municipalities etc it's important to know how many people there are since that in turn would impact things like infrastructure and services provided to be scaled to how many people are around -- not just legal people.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:45PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:45PM (#1025732)

        As you talk about in your second paragraph, this is about the census count, not who can vote, which affects the distributions of seats in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College votes across the states. Cities tend to both have more immigrants and prefer the Democratic Party (i.e. the party currently out of power), so this would effectively decrease the political power of cities and thereby the Democratic Party. The US Constitution is very explicit about the count not being limited to voters, in that it explicitly lays out how to count slaves [wikipedia.org].

        Non-citizen voting in the United States [wikipedia.org] is currently very rare. Around the late 1910s to early 1920s, there was a major anti-immigrant backlash in the United States; the most well-known effect is the Immigration Act of 1924 [wikipedia.org] better known as the "Asian Exclusion Act" as it basically banned immigration from Asia. But around the same time is when most states stopped allowing non-citizens to vote.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:42PM (#1025757)

          You're missing a signficant historical component. All persons residing in the US at it's founding were considered to be citizens unless they declared otherwise, including slaves, hence the apportionment compromise.

          However, several laws that were found to be Constitutional and have established precedent have determined that not all persons residing the US have access to all rights. Also the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasion that the President may control who is counted, unless it specifically goes against the letter of the Constitution (US citizens). Even in rejecting the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Census the SCOTUS unanimous opinion basically says that you probably have the ability to do what you want to do, but your legal premise was crap. We can't establish precedent on that. Please go back and use these references to construct a proper case.

          Essentially, what you're proposing is that it is both legally and morally right that urban centers should import a ton of human capital, depress wages, lower quality of life, and increase taxation on the remaining polity while increasing their ability to vote themselves benefits (which, by the way would not have been permissible under original Constitutional law) from the overwhelming mass of voters who oppose such a premise.

          Your argument is specious, fallacious, mean spirited and tyrannical hidden under a veneer of sophistry. Please, go do some underling task for your oligarchs and leave the rest of us alone.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:44PM (#1025758)

          The irony in bringing up the 3/5s compromise is that the slave owners wanted slaves to be counted fully and equally. You are incentivizing those cities at states to import as many aliens as possible for as much power as possible to maintain the structures of cheap labor that do not follow the laws passed. Labor laws and immigration laws are being ignored to satisfy political power. As these laws are being ignored so to are others such as enforcing any federal law to maintain law and order. We are quickly turning into a nation of a mob instead of a nation of laws.

          The more things change the more they stay the same. Democrats using an effective slave population to gain and maintain power in the federal government.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:58PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:58PM (#1025765)

          I've lived most of my life in the suburbs about 30 miles from a large US city and we've always had a noticeably large population of "illegal" or "undocumented" or whatever the PC (Politically Correct) term is these days. They're mostly from Central America but most people refer to them as "Mexican" (because they come through Mexico to get to USA). They don't speak any English, usually work in construction, restaurants, lawn cutting / landscaping / gardening. In fact many job ads in those industries require Spanish-speaking ability.

          In one town near me there used to be so many Spanish-only speakers that the local McDonald's had a dual-language (English and Spanish) menuboard 40 years ago. I'm sure that's common in areas of the US that are near Mexico, especially San Diego, Los Angeles, etc., but I'm talking 2,000 miles away from Mexico in northeast USA. They mostly worked in a very specific agricultural industry, and that was well known. I used to know a woman who had dated the son of the owner of a very large farm and she knew well about them bringing box-vans full of undocumented workers from Texas (where much of the US-Mexico border is). Gentrification occurred and the farms are now gone and so are the "illegals" and so is the McDonald's Spanish menuboard.

          Point of all of this is: sure, cities have lots of immigrants, but there are more out in the 'burbs than may be commonly known. We tend to be quieter about things than city folks.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bmimatt on Friday July 24 2020, @05:28PM

            by bmimatt (5050) on Friday July 24 2020, @05:28PM (#1025865)

            "I'm sure that's common in areas of the US that are near Mexico, especially San Diego, Los Angeles, etc., "

            As a San Diego resident: no, you're wrong.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:58PM (#1025798)

          Well, in that case,we have an answer.

          The "unauthorized persons" count as 3/5 of a person....

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:01PM (#1025853)

          right, except i think this is more about how many congressional reps states with more illegals get. it's not fair for some reconquered territory like california to get more reps for all of their illegals. The current system gives illegals the vote, indirectly.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:45AM (14 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:45AM (#1025724)

      1. constitution says someone has to count how many people there are.
      2. constitution says number of people determines number of congress representatives.
      3. unauthorized immigrants are not eligible to vote.
      4. it's an election year and the president asks to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the count.

      point 4 here seems a bit strange to me. what if they are unauthorized simply because they're in the waiting list to get their authorization? and there are a number of other what-ifs.

      constitution of the US, at the moment, seems to be based on the assumption that someone living in the US wants to stay there, even if right now they don't have all the paperwork done. this sort of makes sense if you think of the 1800s and early 1900s, when it was taken for granted that anyone could go to the US and start a new life from scratch (modulo the WASP thing and similar). if the president thinks the constitution should be changed, why not say that, rather than check if there are any loopholes around the easy interpretation?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Friday July 24 2020, @12:40PM (11 children)

        by Username (4557) on Friday July 24 2020, @12:40PM (#1025731)

        Just read the constitution, and it says they're to be counted as 3/5ths of a person if they're taxed. The 14th amendment only says those born or naturalized, so they exist outside of that, so I'm assuming it goes back to the 3/4th thing.

        I'm not a lawyer, but it makes sense not to count visitors to your state. Legal or otherwise.

        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:49PM (10 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:49PM (#1025760)

          14th amendment also says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Being in the US does not mean you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by RS3 on Friday July 24 2020, @02:02PM (9 children)

            by RS3 (6367) on Friday July 24 2020, @02:02PM (#1025766)

            Perhaps you don't know the definition of "jurisdiction", but if you're a visitor somewhere and you break the law, you don't get out of jail by saying "I'm only a visitor". So, in fact, "being in the US" most certainly DOES mean you're "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

            From Merriam-Webster: "Jurisdiction definition is - the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law."

            • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:17PM (8 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:17PM (#1025771)

              Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the adjective subject and the noun subject. Any visitor must follow the local laws of that jurisdiction meaning they are under that authority of conduct. That does not mean they are a subject of that jurisdiction meaning a member of the state body politic.

              The legal word for "undocumented immigrant" is illegal alien. All foreigners are aliens. Aliens are not citizens and do not have the same rights and responsibilities as a citizen.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:30PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:30PM (#1025778)

                On the other side, domestic criminals are citizens and should have the same rights and responsibilities as a citizen. How come they're not allowed to vote?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:43PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:43PM (#1025790)

                  You can lose your right to life and liberty through due process of law.

                  The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:58PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:58PM (#1025819)

                All foreigners are aliens. Aliens are not citizens and do not have the same rights and responsibilities as a citizen.

                Which only means they cannot vote. They do have every other responsibility and rights. Someone with a Green Card can't vote, but it doesn't mean they are not a person and should not be counted in a census. They live in the same house and their kids go to same schools that everyone else goes to.

                Any visitor must follow the local laws of that jurisdiction meaning they are under that authority of conduct. That does not mean they are a subject of that jurisdiction meaning a member of the state body politic.

                You are subject to the jurisdiction of where you reside. Be that for 6 months, 6 years or 60 years. Just because you can't vote in politics, means jack shit for purposes of the constitution. If you don't like it, amend the constitution to say that only "white males with land" are to be persons, like in the good old days.

                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:44PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:44PM (#1025843)

                  Which only means they cannot vote

                  Buy a gun? Participate in armed organized militias? Run for public office?

                  They do have every other responsibility and rights.

                  Selective Service? The Draft if it comes back? Defend against all enemies of the US and constitution foreign and domestic? Can the US draft non-citizens? Serve on a jury?

                  it doesn't mean they are not a person and should not be counted in a census.

                  The census being used to appropriate power in the federal government. Counting people is one thing. Appropriating power to people that have no legal claim to representation in the federal government is quite another. Also incentivizing states to break federal law to gain more power and money.

                  There is more to it than voting. Illegal aliens already broke federal law by entering illegally. It fundamentally undermines the point of the US being a nation of laws. It undermines the purpose of a government for the people by the people and the democratic processes to pursue that goal. Democracy means nothing if you ignore the laws created by democratic means.

                  "white males with land" are to be persons, like in the good old

                  As AC pointed out earlier, is kind of ironic that an effective slave population is being used to defend the power of the democratic party. Again.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @06:00PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @06:00PM (#1025872)

                    The constitution is explicitly clear. There isn't room here to bend to some kind of "originalist" or "whaeverist" type of interpretive arguments. There is no confusion in language. You count everybody. Period. And you use that count to apportion representatives.

                    If you want to change it to alleviate your white grievances, then amend the Constitution. You can't reinterpret it because you are afraid of brown people, but you are allowed to change it if you are afraid. You just have to convince a lot of people to do that, but don't worry, you've got a guy at the top who is trying his damndest to scare all the other nervous white people.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @10:40PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @10:40PM (#1025993)

                      Finally, an ardent defender of the 2nd amendment. Preach, brother!

                  • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 25 2020, @03:32AM

                    by dry (223) on Saturday July 25 2020, @03:32AM (#1026072) Journal

                    Your Forefathers were pretty clear with their "no taxation without representation" slogan. If they pay taxes, they should be allowed to vote. Limiting voting to citizens only happened in the last century.

              • (Score: 5, Informative) by vux984 on Friday July 24 2020, @04:57PM

                by vux984 (5045) on Friday July 24 2020, @04:57PM (#1025851)

                "illegal aliens" and "legal aliens" are still "subject to the jurisdiction" in which they reside. To wit, they are not 'subjects OF the united states' but they ARE 'subject TO the jurisdiction of the united states".

                "Aliens are not citizens and do not have the same rights and responsibilities as a citizen."

                However they do have a very large subset of those rights and responsibilities as a resident. Including the right to due process, and the responsibility to pay taxes for example.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:12PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:12PM (#1025747)

        what if they are unauthorized simply because they're in the waiting list to get their authorization?

        When you go to a fast-food joint, and there's a line at the register, do you slip into the kitchen and start swiping food?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:35PM (#1025783)

          no, but I expect to be able to stay in the airconditioned enclosure if there is one.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:57AM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:57AM (#1025726)

      It's fascism, plain and simple. A relatively small chunk of the population, but one that has for whatever reason near 100% representation in the media, has been trying to increasingly aggressively impose their world view in the US. Any imagery that goes against this world view must be toppled and destroyed. Any language that does not support the view must be rewritten and reformed. Any action, no matter how extreme, that supports the worldview is acceptable. Any action that opposes the worldview, no matter how logical, must be aggressively snuffed out. And, worst of all, any person that goes against this world view, regardless of reason or justification, must be destroyed.

      The issue is it's being largely driven by indoctrinated young individuals who simply don't know any better. They have been led to believe that if you believe [insert list of DNC talking points] that you can't be fascist. Indeed even if you look at places such as Wiki they now describe fascism as: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5][6]". Yet if people so chose to do so they could peruse the Fascist Manifesto [wikipedia.org]. That was the booklet of ideas upon which Mussolini built up the original Fascist party from which the contemporary usage of the term originates. And if anybody reads that page they might quickly realize that Fascism has fuck all to do with "far right" and all this nonsense. That entire booklet is something near 100% of DNC voters (and a good chunk of GOP) would happily endorse. They're good ideas. Fascism has nothing to do with your ideology but everything to do with your behavior. And this sort of rewriting language, destroying statues, destroying the lives of anybody who disagrees with you, calling violent rioters peaceful protesters, and all of this other bullshit is plan and simple 100% fascism.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday July 24 2020, @12:50PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @12:50PM (#1025733) Journal
        I think this is an unhealthy way to look at totalitarian ideologies.

        Yet if people so chose to do so they could peruse the Fascist Manifesto. That was the booklet of ideas upon which Mussolini built up the original Fascist party from which the contemporary usage of the term originates.

        You can't base the ideology of a group like Fascists on public manifestos. They lie about everything, particularly promises, and those promises are pretty generic promises. The only real differences between Fascists and Communists of that time were that the Fascists would preserve in crippled, highly controlled form, existing systems like militaries, religions, and businesses, while the Communists would wholesale replace those with their own versions. Propaganda would then evolve to support those choices and these ideologies would attempt to take over other countries with the same themed tricks. My take is that's how Fascists became "right wing" and Communists became "left wing".

        Those differences don't matter much. Both quickly devolved to absolute state power. And once you get there, it really doesn't matter how it happened.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:27PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:27PM (#1025776)

        >It's fascism,

        Now, I don't want to scare you. But fascism is everywhere [wikipedia.org]!!!11!1 Especially around that notorious fascist Abraham Lincoln.

        Spooky. I know.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:43PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:43PM (#1025842)

          Suspending habeas corpus was a pretty fascist thing to do. Lincoln may have preserved the integrity of the country, but I understand why Hollywoodtheatre star Booth did what he did.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:09PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @05:09PM (#1025858)

            During a civil war to free slaves. Such an ass hole. Extreme circumstances demanded extreme measures.

            >but I understand why theatre star Booth did what he did.

            Booth being butt hurt that his side lost using violence during a declared peace in an attempt to force his ideology save hell or high water. Sounds rather familiar to antifa thugs. What's even more pathetic is that the South, accepting their lose, did not herald Booth as a hero that Booth thought he was. Booth was hated for what he had done and died as a traitor to the South and the North.

            You know happened after Lincoln was assassinated? Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, assumed office and stymied the Republican effort of Reconstruction and Emancipation.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @08:49PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @08:49PM (#1025933)

              The war was not to free slaves. That was just a convenience for the side that happened to win. Not saying that freeing the slaves should not have happened, but let's at least not lie to ourselves about the motives there.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:57PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:57PM (#1026017)

                That's a lie and you know it's a lie. Read The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States numbnuts.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:25PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:25PM (#1026140)

                  The south was fighting to keep their slaves, the north was fighting to keep the south. North didn't care about slavery except as a military and political lever.

                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @04:25PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @04:25PM (#1026185)

                    And of course Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware remained under the authority of the North, but kept slavery until the 13th Amendment was adopted. Did West Virginia too after they seceded from Virginia? If I recall correctly, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to "states in rebellion".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @08:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @08:34AM (#1026109)

        From the Wikipedia (not "Wiki") page on the Facist Manifesto you link to:

        Of the Manifesto's proposals, the commitment to corporative organisation of economic interests was to be the longest lasting. Far from becoming a medium of extended democracy, parliament became by law an exclusively Fascist-picked body in 1929; being replaced by the "chamber of corporations" a decade later.

        Fascism isn't considered to be far right because of the original manifesto but because of what it turned into. Mussolini initially tried to "out-socialist the socialists" to gain power but that had little in common with the nationalist and corporatist dictatorship he subsequently established. As Mussolini kept calling that fascism he redefined the term himself, and that is what it refers to today.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:52PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:52PM (#1025735)

      "I'm sorry, but isn't that how it works in every country?"

      Actually no. There are a lot of things in the U.S. law that are very different than other countries. Citizenship by birth residence to start with.

      The government represents the people within its jurisdiction, whether it honors those people with title or no. This ties in with the "All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights" thing. Of course that isn't law, just the sales pitch for the law. But generally that is the way it is supposed to work, and defines the fundamental basis for the derived authority of the state.

      We have no kings here. Or we had none, until Bush II created an inward facing military and unlawful institutions posing as courts of law. Since of course there are no secret courts in the United States (article 1), which means that any courts that are secret, are by definition not courts of law, and posess no lawful jurisdiction.

      If the law isn't the law, then an undocumented worker can pull the string on a guillotine just as easily as a documented one.

      • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Saturday July 25 2020, @05:25PM

        by DeVilla (5354) on Saturday July 25 2020, @05:25PM (#1026197)

        That's awesome! So the 1%ers can start buying up empty land in the midwest and pay enough of unauthorized immigrants to live there, creating a new congressional district. Then have say 5 family members list the town as their "legal residence" to give themselves greater representation in congress and the electoral college. That's genius.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Friday July 24 2020, @02:13PM (8 children)

      by helel (2949) on Friday July 24 2020, @02:13PM (#1025770)

      First, the premise of the story is that the U.S. President seems to be of the opinion that only legal residents of the country should be considered in the political process, and that this is something we should all be up in arms about. I'm sorry, but isn't that how it works in every country? Isn't that the only sane way for the system to work??

      I don't know the law your locality operates under but in the United States the constitution clearly states that the number of representatives each state receives is "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." So, the law is quite clear, everyone is counted unless they are a slave or a citizen of the first nations. To remove undocumented residents would require an amendment to the constitution, an act quite difficult to achieve.

      Second, the author seems to believe that using the word "unauthorized" is appropriate when it comes to people who refuse to follow lawful procedures, in this case for entering a country. Surely, the correct word would be"criminal", or perhaps "illegal?"

      Ah, I see you're quite familiar with US politics and fully versed in the lingo. In the future if you're going to pretend to be an outsider to our politics it might do you better to focus on dictionary definitions in which case someone who does not have authorization to be in the US could be referred to as "unauthorized." As I understand it the more common term outside the US is "irregular immigrant" so next time you could suggest that as the "correct" term for the article to use.

      Now, the author may have a point with regards to who is and isn't authorized to validate a state census (the President vs. Congress), but again, is seems the President has just repeated what is already written in the U.S. constitution. The crux of the matter is whether the term "persons residing in" should be interpreted to include "persons obtaining illegal access to." I would think the answer to that would be pretty obvious, but then I'm not an American.

      Is I quoted above, the answer is obvious and includes all "free persons" residing in a state, not just those who have their paperwork in order. This is nothing short of a blatant attack on the United States constitution.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:26PM (#1025775)

        Fascists lie and decieve, and TrumpCo is fascism mad manifest. Only the blind republicans around here fall for that bullshit, but they are desparate to seem legitimate while maintaining their image of freedom loving civil society types.

        It is getting to be repulsive how fascist they are willing to become while trying blame the people actually fighting for freedom as "the real fascists and racists." They really don't seem to realize how ridiculous they look to anyone that bothers to educate themselves.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:11PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:11PM (#1025806)

        How can they be "Free Persons" when they are subject to removal from the country when they are caught.

        • (Score: 2) by helel on Friday July 24 2020, @03:17PM (5 children)

          by helel (2949) on Friday July 24 2020, @03:17PM (#1025808)

          A free person, in the constitution of the United States, is anyone who is not a slave. They are not slaves, hence they are definitionally free persons.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday July 24 2020, @10:08PM (4 children)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @10:08PM (#1025978)

            A free person, in the constitution of the United States, is anyone who is not a slave

            Close but not quite right.

            A free person is one who's rights were recognized by law.

            For your example of slaves, its basically the same idea.

            The concept of "who have rights recognized by law" is usually interpreted as citizens.

            There are weird corner cases to consider such as foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity or foreign recreational travelers holding internationally recognized passports and visa documents.

            Merely being in the boundaries of the country would seem to mean little; should a passenger in a non-stop jet aircraft flight from Canada to Mexico be considered when determining population statistics for Illinois if he merely flew over the state at midnight on a certain date? How about the Russian space astronauts on the ISS, what if the ISS passed over Wyoming on a certain date does that mean WY gets more congressional reps? Think about it, the ISS astronauts are probably 1% of the population of Wyoming LOL.

            • (Score: 2) by helel on Friday July 24 2020, @10:19PM (2 children)

              by helel (2949) on Friday July 24 2020, @10:19PM (#1025984)

              Firstly, the constitution clearly and plainly recognizes the rights of "persons" and "free persons" as district classes apart from citizens, so no, the concept is not limited to citizens. If they had meant citizens I think it's fair to say they would have used that word instead, as they use it elsewhere.

              Secondly, I am addressing what is in the constitution, not whether or not it should be that way. If your argument is "the constitution should be changed because the way it distributes representatives doesn't make sense in a world with travel faster than a horse" that's fine but it doesn't change what is in the document right now.

              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday July 24 2020, @10:39PM (1 child)

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @10:39PM (#1025992)

                Well, historically the constitution description is merely entertaining to debate how it would have been back in 1850. The 14th amendment in the bill of rights supersedes it

                But when the right to vote ... in any way abridged, except for participation in ... crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

                So essentially if illegal aliens are participants in crime by nature of being illegal, AND are not allowed to vote in federal elections (both true) then the basis of representation in congress is reduced by the number of illegals.

                Yes under the original constitution illegals count for "Basis of representation" but the 14th superseded that back in the late 1860s.

                So if the battle of columbus happened in 1850 technically Pancho Villa and his soldiers would have counted for congressional representation numbers while they were raiding, but seeing as it happened in 1916 Pancho and soldiers would not have counted for congressional representation stats under the 14th amendment.

                Frankly not sure why anyone wants modern invaders to count any more than Pancho's invaders back in 1916. The idea that all subversion must be legalized is weird.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:09AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:09AM (#1026101)

                  It's not the "being illegal" that makes it so they can't vote, its the not being a "citizen" that does. Here is an easy test to illustrate that. Can a legal alien vote? No, because they are an alien. The crime of illegal entry doesn't change that. Nor would the lack of a current conviction of a crime for the people in the U.S. as such mean that you'd think they should be allowed to vote. Although, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

            • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 25 2020, @03:44AM

              by dry (223) on Saturday July 25 2020, @03:44AM (#1026076) Journal

              As a Canadian, when I fill out our census, I'm supposed to enter the number of people residing in the house, not flying over it. And rights are clearly for everyone in our Constitution excepting some political rights which are only for citizens, rights of movement which is only for people legally in the country and some that only apply to flesh and blood humans. Most of your Constitution talks about people, not citizens, once again with some political exceptions.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:42PM (#1025788)

      This is America where corporations are people and people aren't people.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:31PM (#1025835)

      The crux of the matter is whether the term "persons residing in" should be interpreted to include "persons obtaining illegal access to." I would think the answer to that would be pretty obvious, but then I'm not an American.

      Nor a Democrat.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @08:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @08:54PM (#1025937)

      > President seems to be of the opinion that only legal residents of the country should be considered in the political process, and that this is something we should all be up in arms about. I'm sorry, but isn't that how it works in every country? Isn't that the only sane way for the system to work??

      No, and specifically the US has a super complicated history with who counts. First, the job of a US House representative is absolutely not to represent the voters -- it is to represent the district. And that's an important distinction. When you represent a district, you represent the interests of all the people in that district. When the system was established, only a small fraction of the people in a district could actually vote. Landowning men were the only ones casting votes, but it would have been considered an obvious dereliction of duty for a representative to vote to pass a law that made it perfectly legal to murder women and children, for example. In the early days of the republic, there was also a lot of complexity from our colonial roots about how to count native Americans who were residents of an area but maybe not citizens of the US and had no legal status, but certainly not illegal immigrants because they had been there longer, etc. Likewise, it's contrary to the office to try and pass laws that unfairly disadvantage foreign workers with legal greencards, despite the fact that they can't vote, etc.

      A representative represents *everybody* who lives in the district. Period. That's the job. And the districts are allocated based on how many people live in a place. Period. Your lack of iumagination about how things could work doesn't effect the text of the Constitution, or the long standing legal precedents governing the interpretation of it.

      > Second, the author seems to believe that using the word "unauthorized" is appropriate when it comes to people who refuse to follow lawful procedures, in this case for entering a country. Surely, the correct word would be"criminal", or perhaps "illegal?"

      We also have a complicated history in the US with racists trying to paint groups of people as inherently illegal persons with no rights because they made a misdemeanor border crossing that isn't a serious crime. Basically everybody in America has committed some sort of misdemeanor at some point, and it wouldn't be useful to paint all people as "Illegals." Since the racists have made a concerted effort to dehumanize and other groups by referring to them as Illgals, many news organizations prefer not to use that framing since it would not be neutral phrasing within the social context of the United States, even if it appears neutral and accurate in a vacuum.

      > And violent rioters into "protesters?" Oh, wait...

      If you are referring to the recent protests, thousands of protesters show up to protest, articulate clear demands, and then get shot at by police. in general, none of the protests have actually been riots, they have only become violent by being attacked by police. And in places like Portland, protesters are sufficiently organised they they are adopting things like shield wall formations to defend themselves from police attacks. The definition of a riot requires it to be violent and disordered, neither of which actually applies to the protesters.

      > The crux of the matter is whether the term "persons residing in" should be interpreted to include "persons obtaining illegal access to." I would think the answer to that would be pretty obvious, but then I'm not an American.

      If they are "persons" and they are "residing in" then there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that asks how they got there when it comes to apportionment of districts.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday July 24 2020, @09:54PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @09:54PM (#1025972)

      First, the premise of the story is that the U.S. President seems to be of the opinion that only legal residents of the country should be considered in the political process, and that this is something we should all be up in arms about. I'm sorry, but isn't that how it works in every country? Isn't that the only sane way for the system to work??

      The sole purpose for the USA is to serve Israel at the whim of Israeli controlled leadership. Its weird, I know. We're like the only country in the world where our leaders want the genocide the majority of our population. Well, maybe some countries in Europe are doing that with unrestricted invasion.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:09AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:09AM (#1026022)

      Only legal ciitzens are allowed to vote, but that doesn't mean that legal residents shouldn't have representation. Around here there are a ton of legal aliens who came here from various other countries and some stay for a few years before heading back, but I know people who have lived in the US for decades without getting citizenship. Should these people really be cutoff from representation just because they're not citizens?

      Or, how about the people who lose their right to vote due to committing a felony, shouldn't they have somebody that's representing them?

      The reality, is that this has far more to do with the fact that these people disproportionately live in places which vote Democratic and the GOP wants to end it as an effort to give themselves more power. They can't win elections without engaging in elections fraud, so this is the kind of thing they get.

      A happy side effect for them, is that this would require redistricting, and provide another chance to draw the lines so that Democrats never have control of congress again.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:46PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @12:46PM (#1026141)

        The problem with arguing about these issues on the internet is that they are /state/ issues. Most states either abridge the right to vote only while incarcerated or not at all, only a handful of states take voting rights from felons permanently. Allowing resident aliens to vote in elections is a local issue for local elections, national elections might be a different story.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @04:22PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @04:22PM (#1026183)

          So a state could theoretically allow non-citizens to vote? The federal government just prescribes who cannot be excluded.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @08:39PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @08:39PM (#1026745)

            Yes. The Constitution sets floors and ceilings. States are free to do whatever they want between those ranges.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday July 25 2020, @02:21AM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday July 25 2020, @02:21AM (#1026057) Journal

      > This is nothing but a blatant attempt at manipulating the reader by using clearly inappropriate terms to describe reality

      That's Standard Operating Procedure in politics. But having said that, politicians do differ in how often and how bigly they lie. Conservatives are worse. It's not only a matter of degree either. It's their goals. Some are crooks out to loot the public treasury, and party affiliation and consequences be damned. A few are so dumb that if scrap metal paid enough, they would cause bridge collapses from stealing the metal from the bridgework. The more sophisticated crooks restrain their greed enough to give themselves cover.

      The Republican Party in the US made a damn fool move in courting the worse among the voters, because they wanted people they could easily sucker. Throw these moronic, trollish voters scraps of the raw meat they want, and laugh all the way to the bank as those voters ignore or don't even notice all the corruption and graft. One of the names for what they did is the Southern Strategy. The Party of Lincoln, who abolished slavery, has made a complete u-turn and is now pro-Confederacy. It's sickening. But now they're stuck. They gathered up all the worst bigots and idiots, and unintentionally made them a lot more unified and coherent. The rot has now spread so much that the leadership that pulled this stunt is either getting the boot in the primaries or converting to extremism themselves, and the extremists have taken control. And to the surprise of no one with a brain, they've made a huge mess.

      In one respect true to their label, the social conservatives want to turn the clock back to times when people were more ignorant and savage, and when strength counted for more. Anti-education and anti-science stances fit well with that goal. They are also anti-democracy, all too willing to throw away the hard won independence and right to vote because they want a Big Man to tell them what to do and think, and most of all, lead them on a crusade against other peoples, whom they see as rivals and competitors for resources and land, and the biggest threat to themselves, far more of a threat than Global Warming which they easily fit into their view of everything as just ploys to get topsides in the eternal struggle for mates and resources. To them, Global Warming is nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to trick them into sacrificing resources so the liberals can have more. The kinds of lies conservatives tell and believe are all aimed, if only instinctively, towards that Darwinian goal. White nationalists fear the Great Replacement, while wishing to inflict a Great Replacement of their own.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @06:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @06:59AM (#1026100)

      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.

      Is the actual text of the census requirement. What that has been interpreted to mean the entire time was that there are three categories of persons, free individuals, self-sovereign Indians, and slaves. Slaves were 3/5th of a person. Indians that opted out of taxation on their sovereign land don't count at all. Everyone else who is considered "domiciled" in a state is counted as they are "free persons," regardless of legal status, citizenship, or ability to vote.

      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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

      Now this modified the original rule. It now mentions only two of the previous categories. The self-sovereign Indians that opted out of taxation and "persons" taking the place of "free persons." Similarly to the previous rule, they interpreted that to mean all persons domiciled in that state, regardless of legal status, citizenship, or ability to vote.

      One out defenders of changing the rule argue, despite its 100+ year history and original understanding, is that the last section dealing with disenfranchisement modifies the rule since it only mentions "male inhabitants" "21 years of age" and "citizens." The problem with that is it flies in the face of the original understand and how it was applied. Despite only mentioning men in the second part, they have been counting everyone and using it for apportionment, rather than just using men of the right kind. Instead, what they would do is count everyone and then apply the whole disqualification to the group. Say 100,000 women and children, 1 white man, and 1 disenfranchised black man (that isn't a "rebel" or "criminal") lived in a state. The understanding is that their population for apportionment purposes would be 50,001 in order to reflect that half the voting population couldn't vote, in order to disincentivize the southern states from disenfranchising former slaves. So both the text, original understanding, and the 230+ year and 150+ year history for Article One and the 14th Amendment, respectively, as they were actually used clearly shows that a "person" in the state includes all persons in the state that weren't specifically excluded in the text, i.e. untaxed Indians.

    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday July 26 2020, @10:24PM

      by Mykl (1112) on Sunday July 26 2020, @10:24PM (#1026821)

      The use of the word "unauthorised" is appropriate, because it's not illegal to enter the country without permission for the purpose of seeking asylum. Now I grant you that there are a great many people who have entered the country without permission who have no intention of applying for asylum whatsoever. But you can't prima facie claim that all non-permitted entries are "illegal", despite how passionately some people would like that to be the case.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Friday July 24 2020, @11:55AM (5 children)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Friday July 24 2020, @11:55AM (#1025725)

    Changing who will represent who is the hallmark of a dictator. That said, there has been, apparently, informal questions asked, whether canceling the next elections could be acceptable. The answer was, to some surprise, it may be acceptable to cancel the next election.
    So, with the country falling more and more into disarray, the "leadership" may have a "valid" excuse to cancel/postpone elections in November. In the meantime, everything will be done to undermine the division of powers and cement the status quo.

    I wonder if the final move(s) will be cheered into acceptance or rebellion will start a revolution.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @03:15PM (#1025807)

      Doesn't the White House have Pest Control?

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday July 24 2020, @10:15PM (3 children)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 24 2020, @10:15PM (#1025982)

      Changing who will represent who is the hallmark of a dictator.

      What do you call the people who intentionally implement policies designed to flood a nation with immigrants thus changing who will represent who? Someone decided to replace all the white people in the American SW states with Hispanics, I don't think it was Trump, LOL.

      Consider any judge in the history of the country whom has ever removed voting rights from another person, perhaps via felony conviction as some states remove voting rights from felons (which seems a good idea).

      Is the bureaucrat whom approved a US citizen immigrating from the USA to the UK a dictator merely because he acknowledges the former citizen thinks they're no longer a US citizen and sees themselves as a UK subject now?

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 25 2020, @03:57AM

        by dry (223) on Saturday July 25 2020, @03:57AM (#1026077) Journal

        Consider any judge in the history of the country whom has ever removed voting rights from another person, perhaps via felony conviction as some states remove voting rights from felons (which seems a good idea).

        Yep, make a plant illegal and make sure the users, who are often a different race, can't vote to change the unjust law. Rinse and repeat and pretty soon you've got rid of all those undesirable voters.
        BTW, the UK has very few subjects now, a few old Irish is about it. You're thinking of UK citizens as the UK is not as feudal as America, pretty well the only country with segregation based on the feudal idea of a felon. Perhaps you guys could enter the 19th century?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @09:15AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @09:15AM (#1026114)

        Just FYI most hispanics in SW states were there before white people. It is a fact... Look it up.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday July 26 2020, @02:15PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 26 2020, @02:15PM (#1026576)

          Kinda like the Palestinians were in Israel first, so the Jews and their country should be removed, right?

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:27PM (#1025728)

    Do you want a flood of illegal (that means they broke the law) immigrants voting against the citizens that pay taxes here? Fuck no. Would you let Weinstein babysit your 15 year old daughter? Same thing.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:39PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:39PM (#1025730)

    SCOTUS has determined that "persons" doesn't actually mean biological people. The funny thing is that this technically means that voter fraud is legal as far as SCOTUS is concerned. All one has to do is file incorporation papers, and you have technically created a SCOTUS defined "person". Which is how a lot of unlawful immigrants do business in this country as it turns out: file incorporation paperwork, get an EIN and use the EIN as an SSN.

    So the fraud perpetrated by the ameristocracy has finally come full circle on this one. The difference between the quasi-state corporations and illegal immigrants, is in title only. The crimes are effectively the same.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:40PM (#1025756)

      SCOTUS has determined that "persons" doesn't actually mean biological people.
      That was instituted long before Trump to give corporations a vote just like they were actually biological people.
      Giving illegal residents a legal vote is the fastest way to overthrow a country. It could be so easily abused by outside factors.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @11:52PM (#1026012)

      All one has to do is file incorporation papers, and you have technically created a SCOTUS defined "person".

      Yes, the process of incorporation allows a non-corporeal entity to be considered as a person in a court of law so that they could be brought to court and sued or charged with crimes. This has been the case for 2000 years, and is the very definition of incorporation. You're complaining about this because... ?

    • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:31PM

      by Opportunist (5545) on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:31PM (#1026231)

      Hey, at least that way they pay taxes. Which is more than can be said for some of the more "reputable" corporations in the country.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:50PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @12:50PM (#1025734)

    The President's guidance is a check on those states who want their political power to grow by their policies of encouraging illegal immigration to increase their population and thus their number of votes in Congress. Democrats, it's how they roll.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:23PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:23PM (#1025750)

      Plus access to all sorts of Federal funding that is based on population. Population that is a result of deliberately flouting the basic law of the land. That's OK though. Their kids will be born in the USA and therefore totally legal and grateful to the Democrats. Replace Americans with an imported voter base.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by helel on Friday July 24 2020, @02:18PM

        by helel (2949) on Friday July 24 2020, @02:18PM (#1025772)

        Wait, is that why "red states" get so much more in federal funding than they put in?!? Damn, Democrat majority states really need to consider becoming sanctuary states so they can get a fair share of their tax dollars back!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:54PM (#1025796)

        Fortunately for you it is still legal to have your head up your ass.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @01:55PM (#1025764)

      illegal

      Classic dogwhistle; how's that wall coming along? Why would anyone illegally in the country allow themselves to be counted on a census, knowing they could be deported at any time by a different government agency?

      Plenty of non-citizens in a country, legally, at any time, from ivy league foreign students to seasonal workers to musicians to Hollywood actors to silicon valley H1Bs.

      Are you saying Republican states aren't capable of attracting immigrant workers to grow their economies? Why doesn't the president create opportunities that attract international talent; he could open a college and call it, say, Trump University.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:29PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:29PM (#1025777)

      Fucking neo nazi scum

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:42PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @02:42PM (#1025789)

        Suck it Bolshevik cock sucker.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @08:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @08:16PM (#1026732)

          Don't threaten me with a good time!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @06:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @06:31PM (#1025880)

      Right on, Bro! Even as we speak, North Dakota is encouraging South Dakotans to move into their state, to increase their Federal power! It is an insidious and subversive plot! Illegal Dakotans! I say, no Dakotans should be counted as person for the US Census!!!

(1) 2