Posted on 04/23/2019 5:19:19 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The Supreme Court Tuesday will hear oral arguments in the Trump administration’s appeal of lower-court orders forbidding it to ask a citizenship question in the 2020 census. The justices’ task in Department of Commerce v. New York won’t be difficult: The law and facts overwhelmingly support the administration. But the case is a proxy for future battles over redistricting and reapportionment, vital components of American democracy that determine the balance of political power within and among states.
The Census Act grants the commerce secretary discretion to conduct the census “in such form and content as he may determine.” In rejecting the citizenship question, the lower courts usurped that authority and frustrated Congress’s intent. The question about citizenship is far from unprecedented: It was asked in every census but one from 1820 to 1950. Most advanced democracies ask for citizenship information in censuses, a United Nations-recommended best practice.
The administration argues that the citizenship data would help in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, and that is manifestly true. By law, “majority minority” districts must be drawn so at least 50% of eligible voters—i.e., citizens over 18—are members of the minority in question. If too many minority residents are ineligible to vote, that defeats the purpose of avoiding the dilution of minority voting strength. Voting-rights litigation and compliance are hampered by the lack of citizenship data in the decennial census.
...
Factoring such aliens into reapportionment and redistricting does nothing for them, as it does not change immigration status. Rather, it rewards state policies designed to subvert the Immigration and Nationality Act and to achieve enhanced representation at the expense of more law-abiding states. Today’s case marks only the beginning of a larger debate over these questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Next question please.
How about a comprise, say each illegal counts as 3/5th of a person for apportionment purposes.
Why question the obvious? Hell NO.
Not even with 3/5ths of a vote?
/sarc
(Exactly - NO representation for non-citizens.)
What is the point of citizenship anymore? People who have no right being here seem to have more rights and privileges than American citizens do.
By this logic, why aren’t Chinese citizens given representation in our congress?
Or Russians? Or French citizens?
Because wherever these “non-citizens” are from, at least some of their country’s people are getting represented in our congress.
Do other nations even have this conversation? Do they allow representation at that high level?
This is cringe-worthy.
Maybe the UN could give them a seat on the security council...
If they are here illegally, then deport them.
The problem I see, is that silly little quote, ‘no taxation without representation’.
If you are in the US, with a proper and valid visa or work-paper, then I think you need to be counted (to fulfill the no taxation angle). However, if you are here, without papers or visa, I don’t see how you can be counted.
All of this however, is just leading down to some point in ten years where a ‘citizencard’ (proof of citizenship) will be mandatory.
Should they be? No. Does the Constitution say they have to be? Yes.
But coming here legally is a whole other game. ALL my grandparents came in legally. Legal aliens have ALWAYS been represented.
Some questions answer themselves... or should.
Should Noncitizens Be Represented in Congress?
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo!
The problem is that silly little quote, "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." "Whole number of persons" not "whole number of citizens".
No.
JoMa
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.