JUST IN: DOJ reverses course on adding citizenship question to census after Trump tweet…

Trump’s tweet today sent the DOJ into reversing course on the issue of adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census:

KTLA – The Justice Department said Wednesday that it was still looking for a way to include a controversial citizenship question on the 2020 census, even though the government has started the process of printing the questionnaire without it.

The abrupt shift from the Justice Department came hours after President Donald Trump insisted he was not dropping his efforts to ask about citizenship in next year’s nationwide survey. On Twitter he declared, “We are absolutely moving forward.”

I guess Trump finally got their attention.



This isn’t the first time, though, that he’s tweeted he is seeking a delay of the census to give Supreme Court time to rule on it.

The administration has faced numerous roadblocks to adding the citizenship question, including last week’s Supreme Court ruling that blocked its inclusion, at least temporarily. The Justice Department had insisted to the Supreme Court that it needed the matter resolved by the end of June because it faced a deadline to begin printing census forms and other materials.

But on Wednesday, officials told a Maryland judge they believed there may still be a way to meet Trump’s demands.

“There may be a legally available path,” Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt told U.S. District Judge George Hazel during a conference call with parties to one of three census lawsuits. The call was closed to reporters, but a transcript was made available soon after.

A day earlier, a Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed that there would be “no citizenship question on the 2020 census” amid signs that the administration was ending the legal fight. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement Tuesday that the “Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question.”

Trump’s tweet sowed enough confusion to prompt Hazel and U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, overseeing a census lawsuit in New York, to demand clarification by the end of the day.

“I don’t know how many federal judges have Twitter accounts, but I happen to be one of them, and I follow the President, and so I saw a tweet that directly contradicted the position” that a Justice Department lawyer took in a hearing Tuesday, Hazel said.

I guess we’ll see how they proceed going forward.

The article points out that they are still printing the 2020 census, so I’m really not sure what this way forward might mean.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

154 thoughts on “JUST IN: DOJ reverses course on adding citizenship question to census after Trump tweet…

  1. He’s got Bob and John and Bill and Fred and Sally and Martha ….all doing stuff for himand telling him it’s all good…

  2. Government lawyers foobared this whole process. Here’s a good video from Walk, don’t Run productions explaining how this easily could have passed SCOTUS if they just pointed out the question has been used in the past:

    1. Lol, they lie about their identities. They lie about a lot of things. They broke the law to get into this country. Nothing honorable about them.

      I know you aren’t arguing against that. I was just saying.

    1. and I never expected to EVER agree with you…but I know better than to vote a comment or Reply of yours ‘up’ after your defense of a criminal that threatened the life of a police officer who defended his life.

      1. That’s OK. I don’t measure my self-worth on upvotes in the first place. (Frankly, I think it’s an entirely silly system.)

        But I’m glad that you can take disdain of one position and not hold it against another one, simply because of the person espousing it. That’s a mark of integrity that… some people… lack.

        1. @atomicsentinel Of course you wouldn’t care about votes. People here are generally reluctant to down vote anyone, but you’ve garnered over 1800. Recognizing the fact would be a de facto admission of how much animosity you have generated from trolling.

  3. If the question is not put on the census then zero additional congressional seats should be be added. Pick one, Democrats.

    1. Just a quick note: The Census doesn’t lead to an addition of Congressional seats. It leads to a re-apportionment of seats. Some states gain seats; others lose seats. The total number of seats remains unchanged. Congress would need to pass legislation that would become law for the number of seats to be changed.

      1. States with large illegal populations will benefit at the expense of states without them right?

        1. That will happen regardless, but data from the question will allow us to challenge this and highlight just how our apportionment was warped by the counting of non citizens.

        2. Even with the citizenship question, illegals and non-citizens will be counted for apportionment purposes.

    2. @ryan-o Don and slantry are right, but they omit the fact that these districts will also get more federal funding.

      1. I’m doubting that those who wrote this law figured there would be 20 million, or more, illegals in this country being counted, thus affecting reapportionment of congressional seats and allocating of federal funds. Same with birthright citizenship. Some things they couldn’t have foreseen. They tried but missed a couple things. That’s why the law should be changed. It isn’t right any way you look at it.

        1. @ryan-o I heard that it was originally written to count slaves, but like a lot of laws, has been misinterpreted. Sanctuary areas shouldn’t get any extra representation or money.

  4. It seems to me that the Trump admin. can add an additional form to be added to the census forms asking the question if those people are US citizens, even though the long form now doesn’t contain the question.

    It really is a mess though with too many having their say, and not being on the same page.

  5. The question SHOULD BE on the census. We have a right to know who’s here legally and who’s not.

    1. It won’t answer that question, though. Some non-citizens are legal. It does seem representation should be based on only citizens, though, in my opinion.

      1. Actually, it asks VISA/permit status and so we can infer from the answers legal status.

        Just knowing non-citizens is a huge benefit when we see how California is stealing a congressional seat from Idaho and Wyoming and how an additional seat in Texas is set aside for Democrats.

    1. @dr-strangelove
      I agree, just do it, who’s going to stop them? Roberts has his nonsensical ruling, now let him try to enforce it. Last time I checked, the Executive Branch was a co equal branch of government, why should SCOTUS always be the final say? The U S House of Representatives actually has the final say, but the spineless morons gave up that power to SCOTUS decades ago. Just do it!

  6. I’m guessing that someone in swamp purposely jumped the gun and started printing those census to try to get them done before this was fully resolved.

    1. @sheerpolitics Are you suggesting that unelected bureaucrats think that they know better than the president? Why, I’m shocked! Shocked, I say.

  7. I’m guessing this is to reveal that non-citizens are a much higher number than the statists want anyone to know. But if you just access Facebook for advertising you can see there are nearly 20 million Hispanics shown as only speaking Spanish and no English. And that’s just ones on Facebook. I’d bet Non-citizen Hispanics alone are 50 million maybe more.

      1. I’d bet a dollar that they did and Trump changed his mind later via tweet. There’s a reason the questionnaire is still being printed sans the citizenship question.

        1. @dinodoc I think there either people who just take things upon themselves OR there are those who deliberately try to go against him. Just like the person who leaked the round up of illegals leaked it and those who refused to follow Trump’s order about Brennan’s security clearance. The bureaucracy thinks it knows better.

    1. If you believe the guy at Walk, Don’t Run Productions (I believe him), government lawyers screwed this whole case up royally by trying to be too smart instead of just saying the question had been asked in the past:

    2. It’s a bureaucracy. Only in the Trump administration, right?

      Funny how many times you focus explicitly on Trump versus the other content of the post.

      1. In the post you responded to, how many times was Trump mentioned? Heck, how many times did I bring him up in this entire thread before someone else did?

  8. heh

    Judge says he is "increasingly frustrated" with DOJ. Says if he was dealing with Facebook and a lawyer for Facebook said something & Zuckerberg said another, he would demand Zuckerberg appear in court b/c he would assume lawyer isn&#039t speaking for Zuckerberg. But client is POTUS.— Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) July 3, 2019

  9. “It’s completely unprecedented to reprint anything once the presses begin, don’t y’all know that!” – Democrats/Media

  10. The citizenship question should not be controversial since it was always on the census until recent years, and it is on a plethora of other forms that we have to fill out for other things. It’s only a problem because Democrats want more seats to overwhelm Republican representation.

  11. How dare they just printing them without direct authorization from the whitehouse/DOJ/or whatever the chain of command is… they work for the Executive branch not Judicial branch so it doesn’t matter what the SC says…Lincoln had a census question in regards to blacks when they were free, so theres nothing wrong with asking if you’re a citizen or not. When you apply for a job, there is paper work that asks if you are a citizen.

  12. How dare they just printing them without direct authorization from the whitehouse/DOJ/or whatever the chain of command is… they work for the Executive branch not Judicial branch so it doesn’t matter what the SC says…Lincoln had a census question in regards to blacks when they were free, so theres nothing wrong with asking if you’re a citizen or not. When you apply for a job, there is paper work that asks if you are a citizen.

    1. @dr-strangelove
      I agree, just do it, who’s going to stop them? Roberts has his nonsensical ruling, now let him try to enforce it. Last time I checked, the Executive Branch was a co equal branch of government, why should SCOTUS always be the final say? The U S House of Representatives actually has the final say, but the spineless morons gave up that power to SCOTUS decades ago. Just do it!

      1. And let the illegals refuse to send in the form. The less they get counted, the less they get represented.

  13. I’m guessing that someone in swamp purposely jumped the gun and started printing those census to try to get them done before this was fully resolved.

    1. @sheerpolitics Are you suggesting that unelected bureaucrats think that they know better than the president? Why, I’m shocked! Shocked, I say.

  14. I’m guessing this is to reveal that non-citizens are a much higher number than the statists want anyone to know. But if you just access Facebook for advertising you can see there are nearly 20 million Hispanics shown as only speaking Spanish and no English. And that’s just ones on Facebook. I’d bet Non-citizen Hispanics alone are 50 million maybe more.

  15. Government lawyers foobared this whole process. Here’s a good video from Walk, don’t Run productions explaining how this easily could have passed SCOTUS if they just pointed out the question has been used in the past:

  16. He’s got Bob and John and Bill and Fred and Sally and Martha ….all doing stuff for himand telling him it’s all good…

    1. and I never expected to EVER agree with you…but I know better than to vote a comment or Reply of yours ‘up’ after your defense of a criminal that threatened the life of a police officer who defended his life.

      1. That’s OK. I don’t measure my self-worth on upvotes in the first place. (Frankly, I think it’s an entirely silly system.)

        But I’m glad that you can take disdain of one position and not hold it against another one, simply because of the person espousing it. That’s a mark of integrity that… some people… lack.

        1. @atomicsentinel Of course you wouldn’t care about votes. People here are generally reluctant to down vote anyone, but you’ve garnered over 1800. Recognizing the fact would be a de facto admission of how much animosity you have generated from trolling.

  17. If the question is not put on the census then zero additional congressional seats should be be added. Pick one, Democrats.

    1. Just a quick note: The Census doesn’t lead to an addition of Congressional seats. It leads to a re-apportionment of seats. Some states gain seats; others lose seats. The total number of seats remains unchanged. Congress would need to pass legislation that would become law for the number of seats to be changed.

      1. States with large illegal populations will benefit at the expense of states without them right?

        1. Even with the citizenship question, illegals and non-citizens will be counted for apportionment purposes.

            1. The point of the census is to count the number of people in the country, and that’s it. Seats are apportioned based on that number. The only adjustment that used to be made was for slaves.

            2. Apportionment is the point of the census. The data on citizenship will provide us with hard numbers on how illegal immigration (and other non-citizens) answering the census is warping apportionment.

              We might learn, for example, this leads to 2-3 additional seats for California and an additional Democrat seat in Texas and/or Arizona. Then, we can use to fight illegal immigration and maybe bring court cases arguing the overcount of non-citizens is depriving us of our representation.

                1. Maybe, but the numbers will help make the political case and it wouldn’t be first time a subject was revisited and reconsidered.

                  Clause 2 of the 14th Amendment is pretty clearly referencing citizens eligible to vote and Article I, section 2 could also be considered to referencing citizens since “Indians not taxed” are excluded. I’d argue illegals and other non-citizens are akin to “indians not taxed” and should not be counted.

                2. Clause two of the fourteenth amendment was written some eighty years later and refers to citizens in a completely different context. Other provisions of the constitution itself refers to citizens, a point that goes against, not for, your argument

                  You also ignore that Indians had (and to some degree retain) an entirely different status as they belong to quasi-sovereign nations within the US (unlike non-citizens who, for example, pay taxes) and the fact that the apportionment clause as originally conceived rather specifically provided for inclusion of certain people who were not citizens and had no rights whatsoever, albeit in a fractional amount. Of course, this was because half the framers wanted all of them counted, and the other half wanted none of them counted.

                  All in all the case is extremely weak, and certainly not rooted in anything remotely resembling originalism.

                3. In every post, I made it clear the primary goal is having numbers so we know the effects of massive numbers of non-citizens to make a political case.

                  Unless you are suddenly going to claim you’re Thomas or Alito (which I wouldn’t believe anyway), I don’t really care about your opinion about the strength or weakness of a case – you’re not deciding it no matter how condescending your posts.

                  If I had a dime for every attorney who told me “x is impossible” only to find out later it was very doable, but they were just too lazy, stupid, and had conflicting interests that caused them to be short-sighted, I’d be a billionaire.

                  Some lawyers try. They’re creative and they figure out ways of making a case or getting at something from an unexpected angle and surprising their opposition. Then there are the lawyers that I always end up saddled with that first tell me it’s too early and to hold back on something only for the next attorney to tell me it’s too late and I could never really use that as pressure anyway.

                  Lawyers lie, professionally. Lawyers rarely say they are for or against something, they just explain why something can’t be done and won’t be allowed, but frequently they just don’t want to do that and they have no qualms about deceiving their clients. Maybe, like my current attorney, it will require them to do more work and they won’t get any more money so they “strongly advise” we just accept the current offer.

                  Maybe, they’re more concerned with their friendly relationship with opposing counsel and so they first try to tell me there is no such provision in the law, but when I show them the actual section, they say they can’t use it because they’d have to have “undeniable proof” the reason the opposition willfully used data they knew to be in error was for the purpose of denying benefits, which might be an evidentiary standard for a conviction, but can’t conceivably be an evidentiary standard for filing a complaint with the federal attorney.

                  A bucket of spit is worth more than an average gaggle of attorneys and worth hundreds times more than their opinions about a future cases. There’s a reason their profession is derided and there are so many dark jokes about what should be done with attorneys.

                  So, yes, a case might lose. Then again, maybe a good attorney will be found who will find a way to make the case or enough pressure will be brought to bear an amendment can be passed. Is it likely. No, and neither was the US or Texas fight for independence. Is it possible. Yes, but first we have to ignore the omniscient attorneys who are part of the problem and try.

                4. I’d trust a bankrupt used car salesman over an attorney, any day of the week. Lawyers, pimps, used car salesmen…what’s the difference…..

                5. Who, exactly, is being condescending here? I made points, you responded, I replied, and now you’re explaining to me why my entire profession is just a bunch of thieves and hucksters.

                  Sorry you’ve been saddled with bad lawyers. I have major qualms about deceiving my clients, as does everyone else I work with. I strive to represent their interests even when I think they have a terrible case.

                  The problem here is that there isn’t much room for creative lawyering because there’s not much that you can be creative about. You’re not going to be taking any depositions or examining any witnesses; you’re not really going to have any evidentiary record at all, because the entire dispute centers around a single issue of law. This is the only reason why I can have some confidence in guessing where it’s going to land.

                6. As I explained, much of it is attitude. First, it’s impossible. Then, it’s just a weak case; which is not the same.

                  As I wrote, I think you’re probably right about the likely outcome, but your defeatist attitude (at least the way I read what you’re writing) is what I find irksome.

                  I will concede every legal point you made:
                  – Yes, the original article explicitly states all persons.
                  – Yes, some illegals pay taxes and if they followed the law they would all be taxed (but then they wouldn’t be here if they were following the law)
                  – Yes that makes a huge distinction between indians who were not taxed because they were never subject to taxation (maybe not so much from their “sovereign” status which came much later [closer to the time of the 14th amendment I think], but initially because it was just functionally impossible).
                  – Yes the 14th amendment mentions citizens, but that is exactly the point because they’re limiting it to counting voters, so it is narrower than the original article, but the whole phraseology is much more convoluted and technical, so…
                  – Yes, I concede the 14th amendment can be interpreted to further reinforce the broader concept all persons will be counted.

                  …except, we only have to win on one point, and the case is slightly less weak for not counting illegal aliens than for not counting other non-citizens. At the very least, there are some attorneys who disagree with you or believe there is a credible argument to be made.

                  I won’t be surprised if an attorney that actually cares about this unearths two or three cases or maybe notes from founders or authors of the 14th amendment adding considerable strength to the case. That’s what happened with the debate over birthright citizenship which several attorneys argued was black letter law only to find numerous reliable quotes from the authors of the 14th amendment that was never what they intended.

                  In the end, maybe a constitutional amendment is required. Having the numbers and a court case will go a long way toward making that possible, even though amendments represent a huge uphill political battle.

                7. That wasn’t a retreat; whether the government tries to change how people are counted and gets sued for it or, as Alabama has done, a state preemptively sued, either way you’re going to have to go to court and resolve the constitutional issue. And the constitutional arguments for your interpretation are so weak that it’s not going to carry the day. Ergo, absent a constitutional amendment, it’s impossible.

                  It’s not defeatism insofar as I think any attempt to read the constitution in the way that you’re urging would pervert its meaning, something that I don’t favor regardless of how I feel about the purpose for which it is being done. The choice to base apportionment on the number of people, not the number of citizens, in the country might be one that we disagree with in retrospect, but that is the choice that the country made. And if, having decided the choice was not a wise one, we want to change that, there’s a process in place to do that. It isn’t “sue and hope the court cuts out the middleman.”

                  I don’t really care what some of the people who voted for it thought it meant, nor would most judges, because the text itself doesn’t give rise to multiple interpretations. As Scalia would often say, we are governed by laws, not by the intent of legislators.

                  And, a technical correction, both the original article and the 14th amendment specifically mentions all persons. The reference to voting age citizens in the second sentence is a mechanism for penalizing states that refused to permit former slaves to vote that has never been invoked.

              1. That’s what I hope happens, its bs to have illegals padding the numbers for sanctuary states.

                1. There’s no constitutional basis to make that argument. The constitution calls for apportionment based on the whole number of persons living in each state. Not citizens. Not voting age people. Persons.

                  And the framers use the word “citizen” elsewhere throughout the constitution.

                  This isn’t an issue that’s even really debated.

                2. That seems like it would be common sense its citizens. Why should foreigners gets representation?

                3. Bit of his post you seem to have missed:

                  The constitution calls for apportionment based on the whole number of persons living in each state. Not citizens. Not voting age people. Persons.

                  And the framers use the word “citizen” elsewhere throughout the constitution.

                4. Well, that was incredibly condescending. Asking why seems like a reasonable question. Also, that post conveniently leaves out this section was amended by the 14th amendment and that it excludes “indians not taxed” which could be argued to functionally similar to illegal aliens.

                5. It’s not really functionally equivalent at all. I’ve answered that question. Indians not taxed was in the original apportionment clause as well; the only thing the fourteenth amendment did was eliminate the 3/5 provision.

                  If anything, the fact that it was written *twice* and used the same language *twice* only goes to show that persons definitely means persons.

                6. The omniscient poster @slantry is leaving out a lot. First, the original article includes the exclusion “indians not taxed” (http://constitutionus.com/#a1s2c3). How are they different from illegal aliens today – not taxed, not voting, not citizens? That’s an argument, not a fact or legal conclusion – it’s an avenue of how to get at this.

                  Second, the section was amended by the 14th amendment where apportionment was reduced in certain cases and there only male citizens were counted except in the criteria listed (http://constitutionus.com/#x14s2). Here, they’re clearly talking about apportionment based on eligible voters, so non-citizens should be counted.

                  While I appreciate relying on @slantry is much cheaper than having actual cases brought before actual judges, sometimes we should let the courts decide.

                  The bottom line is the question gives us hard data which helps us understand how much the system is being warped and where we should invest in trying to fix it.

                7. First, illegal aliens are taxed. Whether they pay their taxes or not is a different question, but if they don’t, they can be held civilly and criminally liable. Indians belong to quasi-sovereign nations that have entered treaties with the United States; illegal aliens don’t.

                  Second, the fourteenth amendment speaks of apportionment based on persons unless and to the extent that a state denies voting rights to male citizens over 21, in which case there are provisions to reduce that state’s apportionment. Again, section 2 itself distinguishes between persons and citizens. If citizens were the measure they intended use, they’d say “citizens.” This would have also avoided the need to exclude Indians not taxed, since they hadn’t been given citizenship by that point anyhow.

                  Obviously you should let the courts decide; I’m not a judge and my federal clerkship ended quite a while ago. I’m just saying that I’ve been at this long enough to know that the constitutional case for your position is exceptionally thin, and you would lose.

                8. …and as I described earlier, I’ve dealt with lawyers enough that when they start off with “isn’t possible” and then concede ground to “the case is weak” they’re more interested in their own reasons for why they don’t want to argue or pursue something than the real merits of a case or line of argument.

                  I will add, I have no personal animus toward you — obviously I don’t know you — but my anger and dislike for attorneys is deep and unabiding. That is based on personal experiences, some very recent.

                  When somebody starts by talking in absolutes, and then when challenged backs off some, for me that is a “tell.” Most likely, you’re right, but the attitude I’m reading in your comments is just too similar to other attorney’s I’ve dealt with.

                9. I’m not sure what I backed off of, but I repeat that I’m sorry you’ve had bad lawyers. Report them to the body that handles attorney discipline in your state.

                10. Now that is hilarious…attorneys policing attorneys.

                  I logically recognize there is zero basis for transferring any anger I have for other attorneys to you. Honestly, I do apologize because that’s unjust – as I said, I don’t know you – and you don’t deserve to play stand-in for my attorney.

                11. Thanks for saying that.

                  Again, I’m sorry you’ve been stuck with bad lawyers. There are too many of those. But there are a lot of good ones out there.

                12. And, just so we’re clear, Alabama is litigating this issue as we speak. They’re going to lose.

                13. You mean they found an attorney that didn’t agree with you and failed to take your unquestionable advise?

                  I’m shocked. Clearly they deserve to lose.

                14. Yes, attorneys in the Alabama’s AG’s Office are litigating this case.

                  They don’t deserve to lose because they disagree with me, they deserve to lose because they’re wrong about what is not generally considered a close question. We can check back in when the case is resolved. If I’m wrong, I’ll buy you a round or two and you can ridicule me to your heart’s content.

                15. Except it was amended by the 14th amendment and you’re leaving out the part about “indians not taxed.” Why exclude indians, but include other non-citizens?

                16. The fourteenth amendment also, as you’ve noted, uses the word “citizen.”

                  Why use “persons” in the apportionment section (again) instead of “citizens” if “citizens” were the only people you intended to be counted?

        2. That will happen regardless, but data from the question will allow us to challenge this and highlight just how our apportionment was warped by the counting of non citizens.

        3. Re-apportionment is based on “persons.” There is no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

          1. There should be. That is my point, and it’s obvious to anyone that is the right way to appropriate seats.

            1. Making that change will require a constitutional amendment. Until that happens, though, the law is as it is.

                1. At the time, the Constitution was written, there were no distinctions among immigrants. A person could simply sail to the United States and begin living here. He/she was legal so to speak. Within a short period of time, the immigrant could be naturalized. Today’s laws were adopted much later.

                2. Then our constitution has to be understood as it is now. Unless you are saying all immigration laws are unconstitutional and we should not have a nation?

                3. If one subscribed to the notion of a “living” Constitution, perhaps no changes would be required. But there’s a legal barrier: the Constitution contains numerous references to “citizen” and “citizens.” Therefore, the understanding that the Framers did not intend to limit the Census and its use for apportionment to citizens is evident.

                  In terms of immigration law, the Constitution empowered Congress to make such law under Article I, Section 8. Such laws are both Constitutional and, IMO, necessary.

                  The real issue concerns whether such laws should be expanded beyond matters of naturalization e.g. the Census as a tool for apportionment. A citizenship question by itself would likely pass legal muster (as it existed before). To the extent that the question is intended to produce an undercount with political ramifications likely would raise significant legal issues.

                4. That’s fine we need to have that battle to determine apportionment.

                  It’s not right that sanctuary states get more seats because they have illegals padding their numbers.

      2. The result is that states with a large portion of illegal aliens can wind up gaining seats at the expense of states with smaller populations of illegal aliens. It seems very likely that California would have a lot less representation in Congress if illegal aliens were not counted.

        The fact that this happens at the expense of other states is why Alabama currently has a case arguing that the inclusion of illegal aliens is, in fact, unconstitutional. The DOJ tried to dismiss the law suit by claiming Alabama has no standing, but the judge ruled that Alabama has standing for exactly this reason: because they will probably lose a seat in Congress in the next census if the current pattern continues.

        The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t deal at all with the issue of people being here illegally. It’s not hard to see why. Who would have imagined that we would have millions of people living here illegally? And if they had, would they not have assumed that people who were here illegally would be in hiding, and would not be counted in the census?

        And so we come back full circle to the argument made against including a citizenship question: illegal aliens might be undercounted in the census.

        It’s not really about citizenship per se, any more than being opposed to illegal immigration means being anti-immigrant. The Democrats are realizing that if it’s ever determined that illegal aliens should not be counted in the census, they will lose seats in California and several other states.

        In short, the issue is not whether citizens should be counted for apportionment, but whether illegal aliens should be counted. There are, in fact, multiple other statuses between citizen and illegal alien, such as permanent resident. But someone who is not in a legal status should not be counted. And counting every person in the U.S. legally while refusing to include illegal aliens would be completely consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.

        After all, how can you argue someone who invaded the nation illegally is “under the jurisdiction thereof.”

        1. Nothing that you’re saying has any basis in the constitution. Weren’t you the just the other day griping about the living constitution theory? Funny how that works.

          1. It’s all based in the Constitution. Actual Constitutional interpretation, in contrast to the whole “Living Constitution” concept.

            And the answer is to consider the current facts in light of what the text actually says, and how those who wrote and pushed the Fourteenth Amendment intended it to work.

            The case has been filed and is making its way through the court system. The decision should be based on how the Fourteenth Amendment is most correctly interpreted in the best understanding of both the text and the intent of the authors. That’s the opposite of the so-called Living Constitution.

            https://www.irli.org/single-post/2019/06/06/BREAKING-NEWS-VICTORY-Alabama-Rep-Mo-Brooks-Census-Challenge-Moves-Ahead

            1. Right, and they’re going to lose because the constitution is not ambiguous here.

              It’s extremely likely that both the framers and the authors of the fourteenth amendment didn’t consider how illegal immigrants might factor in, because both at the time of the constitution’s adoption and the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, US immigration policy was de-facto open borders. Nobody needed a visa, and so LPRs as we currently understand them didn’t exist either. They thus had essentially two options, to base it on the number of people, or base it on the number of citizens. They chose the former.

              We now face an issue that they never considered, because the concept of immigration regulation was then still unknown. The metric that they chose, however, doesn’t lend itself to an interpretation that would address the current issue. Thus, if in light of current conditions the metric that they chose was, in our judgment, the wrong one, the way that you fix it is by changing the metric, not by trying to force the courts to superimpose new meaning on unambiguous text.

              Your reference to an entirely different clause of the fourteenth amendment that contains language not present in the clause at issue is neither here nor there. Even assuming that this language means what you think it means with regards to birthright citizenship doesn’t move the needle on apportionment one bit, seeing as that particular metric isn’t present in the apportionment provisions. In other words, even assuming that birthright citizenship doesn’t flow to the children of illegal aliens, both the parents and the children are still “persons” for the purpose of the apportionment clause.

    2. @ryan-o Don and slantry are right, but they omit the fact that these districts will also get more federal funding.

      1. I’m doubting that those who wrote this law figured there would be 20 million, or more, illegals in this country being counted, thus affecting reapportionment of congressional seats and allocating of federal funds. Same with birthright citizenship. Some things they couldn’t have foreseen. They tried but missed a couple things. That’s why the law should be changed. It isn’t right any way you look at it.

        1. @ryan-o I heard that it was originally written to count slaves, but like a lot of laws, has been misinterpreted. Sanctuary areas shouldn’t get any extra representation or money.

    1. Lol, they lie about their identities. They lie about a lot of things. They broke the law to get into this country. Nothing honorable about them.

      I know you aren’t arguing against that. I was just saying.

  18. It seems to me that the Trump admin. can add an additional form to be added to the census forms asking the question if those people are US citizens, even though the long form now doesn’t contain the question.

    It really is a mess though with too many having their say, and not being on the same page.

  19. The question SHOULD BE on the census. We have a right to know who’s here legally and who’s not.

    1. It won’t answer that question, though. Some non-citizens are legal. It does seem representation should be based on only citizens, though, in my opinion.

      1. Actually, it asks VISA/permit status and so we can infer from the answers legal status.

        Just knowing non-citizens is a huge benefit when we see how California is stealing a congressional seat from Idaho and Wyoming and how an additional seat in Texas is set aside for Democrats.

  20. “It’s completely unprecedented to reprint anything once the presses begin, don’t y’all know that!” – Democrats/Media

  21. Woops. Sorry about the formatting issue. Not quite sure what happened there…

    💡 💡 💡

    1. That’s okay. We can still read and decipher what’s editorial and what’s not.

      1. I’d bet a dollar that they did and Trump changed his mind later via tweet. There’s a reason the questionnaire is still being printed sans the citizenship question.

        1. @dinodoc I think there either people who just take things upon themselves OR there are those who deliberately try to go against him. Just like the person who leaked the round up of illegals leaked it and those who refused to follow Trump’s order about Brennan’s security clearance. The bureaucracy thinks it knows better.

          1. Is Sec. Wilbur Ross (one of the driving forces behind bringing the citizenship question back) part of the Deep State working the undermine Trump?

            1. @dinodoc If Wilbur Ross is working to bring the question back how is he working to undermine Trump?

              1. He put out a statement put out a statement saying he disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling, but that “the Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question.”

    1. It’s a bureaucracy. Only in the Trump administration, right?

      Funny how many times you focus explicitly on Trump versus the other content of the post.

      1. In the post you responded to, how many times was Trump mentioned? Heck, how many times did I bring him up in this entire thread before someone else did?

    2. If you believe the guy at Walk, Don’t Run Productions (I believe him), government lawyers screwed this whole case up royally by trying to be too smart instead of just saying the question had been asked in the past:

  22. The citizenship question should not be controversial since it was always on the census until recent years, and it is on a plethora of other forms that we have to fill out for other things. It’s only a problem because Democrats want more seats to overwhelm Republican representation.

  23. heh

    Judge says he is "increasingly frustrated" with DOJ. Says if he was dealing with Facebook and a lawyer for Facebook said something & Zuckerberg said another, he would demand Zuckerberg appear in court b/c he would assume lawyer isn't speaking for Zuckerberg. But client is POTUS.

    — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) July 3, 2019

  24. Woops. Sorry about the formatting issue. Not quite sure what happened there…

    💡 💡 💡

Comments are closed.