4 ms·

think in general about a government that wants to target, arrest, and deport certain groups of people Yes. They are deporting people who didn't come into the c

think in general about a government that wants to target, arrest, and deport certain groups of people Yes. They are deporting people who didn't come into the country legally. Its important to have an accurate count of citizens in the country since that's who votes. There is an upcoming Supreme Court case that will determine if non citizens should be counted for House representation. You may not agree with it, but it is important to know. With that said, I don't think ending the census early is the right way to handle this issue at all, it's just slimy.

jimktrains2 6y ago
The constitution specifically says the census is a count of all "free Persons", not only citizens. Obviously SCOTUS will weigh in now, but I think it's important to realize the actual wording of what the census is.
- kevinmchugh 6y ago
  14th amendment drops the "free"
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    While also striking the 3/5 compromise, so I don't think it changes the reading.
- cafard 6y ago
  It uses the term "free Persons" but the context is "their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". So "all other Persons", i.e. slaves, were counted.
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    Well, the 3/5 compromise has been removed, but even still are you arguing that immigrants aren't people or aren't free, i.e. not slaves.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
      Prisoners aren't free, but they still use infrastructure and I'm pretty sure they are supposed to be counted in the census.
      - jimktrains2 6y ago
        They are, because they are free in that they are not slaves. Prisoners still have a plethora of constitutional rights.
        Broken_Hippo 6y ago
        The amendment against slavery excludes prisoners: Sometimes, they are, indeed, slaves. And yeah, they have rights. But they don't have the right to freedom as we know it nor do they have the right not to be slaves.
        jimktrains2 6y ago
        You act as though there is a single freedom, which is not the case by any means. The amendment carves out specific exemptions for prisoners for certain things, but that doesn't make them chattal slaves, nor does it remove the rest of their rights, e.g. cruel and unusual punishment, ability to have representation, or have their speech curtailed.
        Broken_Hippo 6y ago
        I'm not sure who would classify prisoners as free, though. Classifying prisoners as free is warping what most folks would consider free. You can have rights and not be free. POW's are supposed to have certain rights, too, but that's hardly free. You can have rights without being free. Not being chattal slaves doesn't make you free either, nor does it mean you aren't a temporary slave. In general, folks would agree that if you are in a situation where you are forced to eat at certain times, possibly only use toilets or showers at certain times, can be used as labor with little to no pay, and can never roam freely at the behest of armed guards that can shoot you, you aren't free. The main exception to some of this is military, but for now, this is something folks choose and some countries' soldiers are more free than the ones in the states.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Your interpretation would imply they intended non-citizen native Americans to be counted in the Census.
  - jimktrains2 6y ago
    The original text and the 14th amendment both excluded untaxed indians from the apportionment for the house of representatives. So, they could ask to be counted, but there is no mandate to count them.
kevinmchugh 6y ago
The constitution never said to count the people who vote. If you wanted to know that, just count how many people vote.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  The constitution also doesn't preclude counting who is able to vote. The constitution places limits on the government, but we can add things that act within those bounds. Asking about citizenship falls within those bounds.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    Article 1 Clause 3 requires enumeration of all free persons.
    - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
      Yes. Again, counting citizens does not also preclude counting free persons. We already gather data on peoples race and religion, proving that we can gather more data than just headcount, and citizenship information has already been gathered between 1950 and 2000.
      - jimktrains2 6y ago
        Counting only citizens does preclude counting all free persons. (If you're speaking about counting all but considering citizenship a demographic, that's legal and used to be done iirc, but was dropped as it was feared it would disincentivize non-citizen being counted. The recent court case about the citizenship question was settled by the courts because of administrative procedure, not the legality of the question.) Moreover, collecting demographics data is orthogonal and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

jimktrains2 6y ago

The constitution specifically says the census is a count of all "free Persons", not only citizens. Obviously SCOTUS will weigh in now, but I think it's important to realize the actual wording of what the census is.

kevinmchugh 6y ago
14th amendment drops the "free"
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  While also striking the 3/5 compromise, so I don't think it changes the reading.
cafard 6y ago
It uses the term "free Persons" but the context is "their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". So "all other Persons", i.e. slaves, were counted.
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  Well, the 3/5 compromise has been removed, but even still are you arguing that immigrants aren't people or aren't free, i.e. not slaves.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    Prisoners aren't free, but they still use infrastructure and I'm pretty sure they are supposed to be counted in the census.
    - jimktrains2 6y ago
      They are, because they are free in that they are not slaves. Prisoners still have a plethora of constitutional rights.
      - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
        The amendment against slavery excludes prisoners: Sometimes, they are, indeed, slaves. And yeah, they have rights. But they don't have the right to freedom as we know it nor do they have the right not to be slaves.
        jimktrains2 6y ago
        You act as though there is a single freedom, which is not the case by any means. The amendment carves out specific exemptions for prisoners for certain things, but that doesn't make them chattal slaves, nor does it remove the rest of their rights, e.g. cruel and unusual punishment, ability to have representation, or have their speech curtailed.
        Broken_Hippo 6y ago
        I'm not sure who would classify prisoners as free, though. Classifying prisoners as free is warping what most folks would consider free. You can have rights and not be free. POW's are supposed to have certain rights, too, but that's hardly free. You can have rights without being free. Not being chattal slaves doesn't make you free either, nor does it mean you aren't a temporary slave. In general, folks would agree that if you are in a situation where you are forced to eat at certain times, possibly only use toilets or showers at certain times, can be used as labor with little to no pay, and can never roam freely at the behest of armed guards that can shoot you, you aren't free. The main exception to some of this is military, but for now, this is something folks choose and some countries' soldiers are more free than the ones in the states.
CyberRabbi 6y ago
Your interpretation would imply they intended non-citizen native Americans to be counted in the Census.
- jimktrains2 6y ago
  The original text and the 14th amendment both excluded untaxed indians from the apportionment for the house of representatives. So, they could ask to be counted, but there is no mandate to count them.

kevinmchugh 6y ago

The constitution never said to count the people who vote. If you wanted to know that, just count how many people vote.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
The constitution also doesn't preclude counting who is able to vote. The constitution places limits on the government, but we can add things that act within those bounds. Asking about citizenship falls within those bounds.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  Article 1 Clause 3 requires enumeration of all free persons.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Yes. Again, counting citizens does not also preclude counting free persons. We already gather data on peoples race and religion, proving that we can gather more data than just headcount, and citizenship information has already been gathered between 1950 and 2000.
    - jimktrains2 6y ago
      Counting only citizens does preclude counting all free persons. (If you're speaking about counting all but considering citizenship a demographic, that's legal and used to be done iirc, but was dropped as it was feared it would disincentivize non-citizen being counted. The recent court case about the citizenship question was settled by the courts because of administrative procedure, not the legality of the question.) Moreover, collecting demographics data is orthogonal and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.