All they do is sit around and play cards all day, anyway...

This is another good point--the idea that excluding undocumented immigrants (and, in practice, legal immigrants as well) will only hurt urban dem strongholds is a farce. A rough example: 7 of the 11 million undocumented people in America live in metro areas--which is actually below the rate of American citizens who live in cities (clocks in around 80%).

Hell no they gossip like it’s an Olympic fucking sport

There are that many undocumented spread throughout those places that not counting them would decimate federal funding and lead to mass healthcare layoffs??

In CA, TX, and FL, yes.

I'm late to the party here, but do they expect non citizens to actually answer census questions?

Before, yes. Now, probably not.

I am aware of the 14th amendment says, that's why i said "model" and not "federal law" or "the Constitution". This reading of that section of the 14th is what breaks the model (and arguably the founder's intent) through vote dilution as it was written prior to capping the number of House members at 435.

Here's a basic example that explains how:

Imagine two districts, A and B, each with 100 people so their apportioned number of House reps would be equal. Now imagine District A has 20 non-citizens and District B has 50. For a candidate to win in A, they need 41 votes (100 people - 20 non-citizens = 80 voters). For a candidate to win in B, they need only 26 votes (100 people - 50 non-citizens = 50 voters). This means that although district B has fewer voters, the voters are significantly more influential in determining policy at the national level. Sub in race for citizenship status and you can see how gerrymandering to use this effect to dilute the black vote was a big part of southern racism in the mid-20th century.

So the reason I asserted it breaks the representative democracy model is because it makes the resultant value of individual votes uneven between high non-citizens districts and low non-citizens districts. And because the number of House reps is now fixed, it's possible for states with low native population growth to lose allocated reps to states with the same native population growth (same number of voters) and high illegal immigration, further diluting the value of votes (PA vs. CA for example).




My complaint is that the economic impact of illegal immigration is partially masked by counting "persons" vs. "citizens" for federal funding and I believe that federal dollars should go to citizens first (kids on the street in Baltimore or the homeless in Seattle) before they go to people residing in the country illegally. If states want to be sanctuaries, and the voters in that state approve it, that's fine. Raises funds to cover that decision, do not use the "persons" loophole to offset those costs to the feds at the expense of other states and voters. If the census question moves the scale towards "voters" from "people", that seems like a more fair way to measure for allocating representatives.

There's been some on the left that have been agitating for the end of judicial review given the bleak future they see for themselves at the Supreme Court. It would be poetic justice for them if the trigger for the end is instead Trump telling this SCOTUS to go pound sand because they weren't right wing enough.

I do believe impeachment hearings will become more probable than not if he adds the question via executive order.

I have a theory that because Democrats, or their leaders, have viewed impeachment as unpredictable in terms of how it would affect public opinion, they have instead been trying to use it as a deterrent. They reach out for documents that impeachment would make instantly accessible to them, get stonewalled, and then...stop. They call witnesses, who refuse to appear, and then...stop. They keep saying weird cryptic stuff about how Trump is or will eventually “self impeach.”

I think this has been, in their minds, a warning. “Normalize a bit, or we will pull this trigger and all of this shit you don’t want to happen will happen.” The obvious problems with this being that they have no clear definition of what a “you went too far” moment would be, and Donald Trump will only see those actions as displays of weakness because he doesn’t read subtext at all.

I do suspect that an executive order on a census question the administration has lost a Supreme Court fight over, and which it has openly confirmed is intended as a way to elevate the influence their voters have in elections, might do it.

More importantly it MIGHT be the line in the sand for Senate Republicans.

not a chance on anything related to illegal immigration.

cheeto only cares about illegal immigration in as so much his rednecked base will rally around him. he could give two shits and has been show to regularly use them at his properities

what "other actions" could there be, outside of "show me your papers"?

I’m a little unclear, if your reason for adding the census question is to ensure that the census itself is an accurate read of United States citizenry, what it means to say you’ll “get that data from other means,” or how outside data could be collated and used to produce those same results.

I've been confused about this from the beginning. Sure there's simple formula that could correlate prior census data with, say, traffic planning data (# of foot visitors, etc), and just figure out the delta?