President Trump Is Calling For A New Census!

[Reagan]

 

This new census will NOT include illegal aliens!   Excellent!

[Reagan]

 

WOW!

[OlDawg]

This will be ruled unconstitutional as it's being described. The official decennial census is to count ALL people--except for Indians not paying taxes (which I don't think there are any nowadays). Asking if someone is a citizen, or permanent legal resident isn't illegal. SCOTUS just said the justification needs to be there. They never ruled it unconstitutional.

Whether someone is here temporarily (illegal immigrant) for apportionment/monetary funding benefit will be a SCOTUS question that hasn't been addressed.

Logically, temporary residents shouldn't be used for this purpose. This is actually how sanctuary cities receive a great deal of the funding to remain sanctuary cities. If they have to pay themselves, there's much less of an incentive to flout immigration laws. This is actually as big an issue as representation, and doesn't receive near the attention. The Feds dole out around $1.5-2 Trillion every year based on census numbers gathered. If temporary people (which illegal immigrants should be considered) are counted, it skews not only representation and creates under-representation for millions of citizens and legal residents, it also deprives them of funding.

This is against their Constitutional rights of equal representation.

This will be an interesting case, and will take a while to perculate.

[OlDawg]

How the decennial census affects funding.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

7 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

WOW!

…. and gerrymandering. 

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, OlDawg said:

This will be ruled unconstitutional as it's being described. The official decennial census is to count ALL people--except for Indians not paying taxes (which I don't think there are any nowadays). Asking if someone is a citizen, or permanent legal resident isn't illegal. SCOTUS just said the justification needs to be there. They never ruled it unconstitutional.

Whether someone is here temporarily (illegal immigrant) for apportionment/monetary funding benefit will be a SCOTUS question that hasn't been addressed.

Logically, temporary residents shouldn't be used for this purpose. This is actually how sanctuary cities receive a great deal of the funding to remain sanctuary cities. If they have to pay themselves, there's much less of an incentive to flout immigration laws. This is actually as big an issue as representation, and doesn't receive near the attention. The Feds dole out around $1.5-2 Trillion every year based on census numbers gathered. If temporary people (which illegal immigrants should be considered) are counted, it skews not only representation and creates under-representation for millions of citizens and legal residents, it also deprives them of funding.

This is against their Constitutional rights of equal representation.

This will be an interesting case, and will take a while to perculate.

THIS will be a fight. Democrats have a lot to lose.

[mat]

Why didn’t he wait on the new census rather than pushing Texas to change district maps?

[OlDawg]

38 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

THIS will be a fight. Democrats have a lot to lose.

Republicans would be wise—while they have the majority in both House & Senate—to pass a law that ties Federal funding to a census that only counts legal, permanent residents.

Separate it from the decennial census. Funding isn’t mandated by the Constitution in Article 1.

[Separation Scientist]

Either way the Electoral votes will change. Trump is instituting voting safeguards, eliminating fraud, plus people are fleeing blue states like crazy, and red states are gaining. In the next 3.5 years, this effect will be magnified even more. Watch for a mass exodos from NY as soon as the Democrats elect their Communist mayor.    

[OlDawg]

27 minutes ago, Separation Scientist said:

Either way the Electoral votes will change. Trump is instituting voting safeguards, eliminating fraud, plus people are fleeing blue states like crazy, and red states are gaining. In the next 3.5 years, this effect will be magnified even more. Watch for a mass exodos from NY as soon as the Democrats elect their Communist mayor.    

The people that will elect him—if it happens—will be the ones that can’t afford to leave. That’s the audience (and brainwashed young people) he’s catering to…

It’ll be the typical socialist/communist downward spiral that’s proven out through history everywhere it’s been tried. Of course, there’s always the idiots that believe it’ll be different for them.

[thetragichippy]

3 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

The people that will elect him—if it happens—will be the ones that can’t afford to leave.

It amazes me they don't understand this.....

It's like they never took a history class

[5GallonBucket]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

It amazes me they don't understand this.....

It's like they never took a history class

They only see “now”…..not “tomorrow”

generation of instant gratification no matter the cost

IDIOTS PERIOD

[baddog]

We’d be surprised what is not taught in history class anymore.

[baddog]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

It amazes me they don't understand this.....

It's like they never took a history class

Here is who he is actually running against…..right out of the dem playbook. You can see the educated people behind him.

 

[OlDawg]

Interesting way of looking at gerrymandering with actual numbers vs. hyperbole.

According to this measurement method, Republicans should currently have 6 more seats.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[Separation Scientist]

6 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

It amazes me they don't understand this.....

It's like they never took a history class

I am not surprised at all. They have been so dumbed down its ridiculous. Jesse Watters takes a microphone out on the streets and asks 20 and 30 something's the most basic questions imaginable and they either have a deer in the headlights look or answer with mind numbing ignorance. For example many thought "Israel invaded and massacred Palestine" on Oct. 7 two years ago. 

Same ones follow social media influencers, Taylor Swift, Greta Thunberg and the like for their worldview. To them, Socialism and Communism just means "everything is free'. These blazing idiots have no idea what it really means. 

  

[OlDawg]

2 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

I am not surprised at all. They have been so dumbed down its ridiculous. Jesse Watters takes a microphone out on the streets and asks 20 and 30 something's the most basic questions imaginable and they either have a deer in the headlights look or answer with mind numbing ignorance. For example many thought "Israel invaded and massacred Palestine" on Oct. 7 two years ago. 

Same ones follow social media influencers, Taylor Swift, Greta Thunberg and the like for their worldview. To them, Socialism and Communism just means "everything is free'. These blazing idiots have no idea what it really means. 

  

You wanna’ know the scary part? They’re the group that’s mainly populating AI.

We need a lot more old farts posting on here to counteract them. Y’all go ahead and get started. 😂 

[tvc184]

22 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Republicans would be wise—while they have the majority in both House & Senate—to pass a law that ties Federal funding to a census that only counts legal, permanent residents.

Separate it from the decennial census. Funding isn’t mandated by the Constitution in Article 1.

But the Republicans don’t have the majority in the Senate. 

[OlDawg]

2 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

But the Republicans don’t have the majority in the Senate. 

Technically, they hold 53 seats. Plus Vance.

[thetragichippy]

29 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Technically, they hold 53 seats. Plus Vance.

To pass that kind of law, don't the need 75% voting for?

[OlDawg]

8 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

To pass that kind of law, don't the need 75% voting for?

I think it would take 60. But, don’t quote me on it. There may be other ways since it’s a funding mechanism. The funding isn’t directly tied to the census. It’s used because it’s considered the ‘authoritative’ data. If it’s a budget process, it may only take a simple majority.

[thetragichippy]

3 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I think it would take 60. But, don’t quote me on it. There may be other ways since it’s a funding mechanism. The funding isn’t directly tied to the census. It’s used because it’s considered the ‘authoritative’ data. If it’s a budget process, it may only take a simple majority.

I think your right about the 60 now that you mention it. That might have been TVC's point

[OlDawg]

8 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I think your right about the 60 now that you mention it. That might have been TVC's point

I think it was his point. That’s why I said ‘technically.’ They would probably have to pick off 6.

In the infamous words of Don Rickles in Kelly’s Heroes “Make a deal deal.” Some Dem Senator’s states may benefit from a more frequent census that didn’t have a large illegal immigrant population.

Doubtful in this environment. But, stranger things have happened.

[tvc184]

20 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I think your right about the 60 now that you mention it. That might have been TVC's point

Exactly.

A majority in the Senate requires 60 votes to end the filibuster and allow a bill to come up for a vote. It only takes 51 votes to win an issue but 60 to allow the vote.

 In the House where there is no filibuster and limited time to debate, a one vote majority is actually a majority because the opposition can’t stop a vote. In the Senate the Republicans (or Democrats) could have a huge 59 - 41 advantage and yet can’t pass a bill without support from the opposition.

In the House if one party has 218 representatives, leaving the other party with 217, they have an effective majority of in order to allow a vote. In the Senate an effective majority is 60 in order to allow a vote.

So when I see comments on, “why don’t we just pass a law”, the answer is that they can’t without at least some bipartisan support from the opposition. They don’t have the required 60 vote majority. 

[OlDawg]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Exactly.

A majority in the Senate requires 60 votes to end the filibuster and allow a bill to come up for a vote. It only takes 51 votes to win an issue but 60 to allow the vote.

 In the House where there is no filibuster and limited time to debate, a one vote majority is actually a majority because the opposition can’t stop a vote. In the Senate the Republicans (or Democrats) could have a huge 59 - 41 advantage and yet can’t pass a bill without support from the opposition.

In the House if one party has 218 representatives, leaving the other party with 217, they have an effective majority of in order to allow a vote. In the Senate an effective majority is 60 in order to allow a vote.

So when I see comments on, “why don’t we just pass a law”, the answer is that they can’t without at least some bipartisan support from the opposition. They don’t have the required 60 vote majority. 

One thing I was thinking on last night was an EO. Most of this money is actually funded via data from the census directly from a specific government department. It would only be a temporary fix if an EO was used to modify funding, but I don't see why one couldn't be used. Seems a liberal San Fran judge blocked this Administration from stopping some funding earlier this year. But, that was because it had already been allocated. (That, and just being anti-Administration policies of course.)

If an EO was used--early enough--that said funding would only be tabulated based on 'permanent, legal residents calculated by such & such numbers', I'm not sure it wouldn't work. It would be challenged. But, I know of no legal reason it may not be upheld if appealed.

May need to research more...