Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ultimately, the Democrats in California want the illegal aliens to be able to vote, but in the meantime, they want them to be counted for the census, such that they can gain, or at least maintain the number of US representatives they can send to Washington. This will also help them gain, or at least maintain, the number of electors they control in the Electoral College.
This makes no sense. CA has been solid D ever since Ronald Reagan quit appearing on the ballot. The only R to win a prominent office in the last 25 years was married to a Kennedy.
The interesting trick is that Texas has a high illegal immigrant count and is solidly R. As are many of the Southern states. Florida is a state that is R by a whisker with what might be a large number of illegals. But as I heard recently- 'an inch is as good as mile'- so if those folks are counted the R still claims all the EC votes available.
Not true. The 2000 form that you posted had TWO forms the short form which went to 80% and did NOT have the question. The Long Form that went to 20% did. And no Obama did NOT remove it because the long form was discontinued.
Did they ask it in 2000? Yes you say? Case closed. haha
Did they ask everyone in 2000? Nope. But that isn't the point.
Democrats didn't complain about the question when Bill Clinton was in office.
This makes no sense. CA has been solid D ever since Ronald Reagan quit appearing on the ballot. The only R to win a prominent office in the last 25 years was married to a Kennedy.
The interesting trick is that Texas has a high illegal immigrant count and is solidly R. As are many of the Southern states. Florida is a state that is R by a whisker with what might be a large number of illegals. But as I heard recently- 'an inch is as good as mile'- so if those folks are counted the R still claims all the EC votes available.
Bush won California in 1988. 1992 was when it flipped as did many other states that haven’t gone the other way since. I think we will look back at 2016 and realize it was when Ohio lost its swing potential and Michigan and Wisconsin both became swing states. These things tend to cycle for 25 years or so at a time
Bush won California in 1988. 1992 was when it flipped as did many other states that haven’t gone the other way since. I think we will look back at 2016 and realize it was when Ohio lost its swing potential and Michigan and Wisconsin both became swing states. These things tend to cycle for 25 years or so at a time
Michigan will swing back in 2020. Wisconsin has been a swing state for awhile. But now you are seeing states that were reliable R like Arizona becoming Swing States. I think that is good for our nation, the more Swing States we have the better for our us all. It is not good when 3-4 states decide elections
Will your state lose a representative that will go to a state with a significant number of illegal aliens? Don’t you think this is what is behind the push to keep the citizenship question off of the census forms?
All along conservatives have been stating that the Democrats are for open borders so that they will increase their number of voters. It is more insidious than that, now that we see the real reason. This was set up in the Obama administration. For two hundred years before that, the citizenship question was in the census.
I am beginning to think the smartest crooks around are Democrats in office.
We will likely gain a seat in Washington....illegals will be part of the increase. I'm boycotting the census in an effort to negate some of the illegals counted.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat
Will your state lose a representative that will go to a state with a significant number of illegal aliens? Don’t you think this is what is behind the push to keep the citizenship question off of the census forms?
All along conservatives have been stating that the Democrats are for open borders so that they will increase their number of voters. It is more insidious than that, now that we see the real reason. This was set up in the Obama administration. For two hundred years before that, the citizenship question was in the census.
I am beginning to think the smartest crooks around are Democrats in office.
NO.
Lets be clear. 2 things can be true at once.
1. It is 100% legal to put the citizenship question on the Census(but that question will cause non citizens to be afraid of answering the census)
2. The Constitution does not state to count citizens, it says to count all people residing in the districts, as even non citizens are residents and deserve the right of representation.
You can make an argument for the citizenship question, I just think it does more harm than good. Because accurate representation matters.
Texas has a bunch of over populated congressional districts (Larger than what we believe the census will have as the average). Texas's predicted net gain is 3 seats, but they have 1.6 million (or 2 congressional seats worth of population) illegals. if illegals and angry hispanics decide not to answer the census. Texas could end up as a net neutral instead of gaining them.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
We will likely gain a seat in Washington....illegals will be part of the increase. I'm boycotting the census in an effort to negate some of the illegals counted.
The census is to count everyone in the nation, no matter what their status is.
"The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[17] Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.
Historian Garry Wills has speculated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, "slavery would have been excluded from Missouri ... Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed ... the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico ... the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed."[17] While the Three-Fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large slave populations, for example, the Connecticut Compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.[18] "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
