Serious question -- what do Trump supporters think the citizenship question was supposed to DO?

Your "math" assumes that green card holders are the only legal immigrants. Same mistake you made before.

Let's say there were 5 visa holders. You just counted them as illegal immigrants. They are legal immigrants.

Using small numbers doesn't change the fact that your math still doesn't add up. You've offered more than one subtraction formula. None have been right yet.

Changing tunes won't change the facts.

 

They still aren't voting.

We already count people who can't vote for House seats.

The question wasn't used in the past to exclude people from the numbers used to calculate House seats. Which is what people are proposing now.

Other than missing out on literally every imaginable fact, same to you.

 

Asking how many people are citizens does not tell us how many people are illegal. Again.

Then why ask a question that . . . doesn't . . . address . . . that?

 

Again? You and I have not addressed this topic even remotely.

If you look at the various methods of non citizens being here illegally such as green cards, visas etc, we know the numbers on those categories quite well. If you subtract all of those categories from the number of non citizens, you have a far more accurate picture of just how many illegals are currently in the country. This really isnt that difficult of a calculation. There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

It does address that issue. It merely requires that one be willing to open their eyes.

 

I've specifically pointed out the difference between just adding the question and using it to count as people.

 

You have specifically claimed that in order to ask about citizenship, it would first require a constitutional amendment. You were wrong and have been proven as such. Lick your wounds and move on, please. I am getting tired of you continually trying to take another bite at the same apple.

 

The Constitutional question would be to add the citizenship question and use it for counting the people. The Supreme Court just gave an opinion on the tRump adding a citizenship question and called it contrived. They can try to go to court, but there is no Constitutional issue that changes the Supreme Court decision. tRump lost, period.

 

If it doesn't accomplish anything, why are you so afraid to add it?

 

You've been told by the Supreme Court the request to add it was contrived. Adding citizenship was designed to lower Hispanic participation in the census, that isn't going to happen, so it's tough titty, get it?

 

Straw man and dodge in one post. Nice.

 

Either the question is un-Constitutional or it is Constitutional.

The reason is irrelevant.

And no, he hasn't lost.

 

Of course they are.

They are being counted for additional representatives in the federal government. People who are not allowed to vote should not get representation.

Yes, it was. I refer you again to native americans.

You can keep losing this argument as long as you want.

 

Unfortunately for you, the reality of the world is different than your opinion based on a very small understanding of the law. All decisions in court don't involve a Constitutional issue.

 

Oh really.

What other kind of "legal immigrants" are there?

Go ahead and say "tourist visa" for me.

A temporary "visa" holder is not an immigrant, either legal or illegal. A "visa" is given to a foreign citizens who do not live in the United states.

Please continue with this line of reasoning.

Oh and just for fun, I'd like to point out that the US government probably has an idea of how many temp visas it issues as well.

Should I go over subtraction again?

When you sober up to the reality of how badly you're losing, it'll be too late.

 

You had to produce your birth certificate so you could use your drivers license as ID to vote.

 

No. Those are based on the number of people, not citizens.

 

Unfortunately for you, those of us who live in reality realize that SCOTUS only does two things:

1. Determines the legality of some act based on the law
2. Determines the Constitutionality of laws

This is the unfortunate part for you: there is no law that prevents the question, and the question is not un-Constitutional.

The court doesn't get to decide how or why a Constitutionally valid act is performed.

This is just another thing leftists are going to lose at.

 

Didn't answer my question.

 

Nice dodge yourself. You also need to look up the definition of a straw man. I asked a question. Care to answer it?

 

I keep telling him he should look up the definition of strawman. Haven't seen him use it correctly yet.

 

The question is based on a straw man. Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

You should really familiarize yourself with visas. Really.

 

Really.

Why don't you go ahead and break it down for me.

No matter what you say, it's a simple matter of subtraction.

Go ahead, wear yourself out.

You'll just go down tired.

 

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that representatives in the House “shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers,” with the “Numbers” determined by “counting the whole number of persons in each State.”

 

Your question wasn't directed to me and what difference would it make, you aren't going to add the citizenship question, period. The census needed to start printing just after the decision and that's a lot of printing.