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

Counting the number of citizens doesn't tell us who's here illegally. Non-citizen =/= illegal.

 

Clearly you don't want accuracy, I get that.. As for the silly hair thing, well you could at least lead by example in your own thread, or do you think adding goofy hyperbole help you and your thread look more legit LMFAO

 

Only the most recent example of adding the citizen question to the census has been called contrived by the Supreme Court. That's why it is, all of a sudden, out of bounds.

 

Legal residents need fear nothing, nobody is trying to make a case they would not answer the question. Counting the number of citizens will tell us who will and won't be losing seats in the House...

 

Post it all. It just starts getting relevant at "FREE persons" ... Sounds like some "persons" are excluded, and that a couple constitutional amendments had to be ratified before representation was extended to those "other persons". Which amendment extends representation to foreign nationals?

 

This is, unfortunately, the most consistent answer.

 

Your statement is unrelated to what you quoted, and also untrue.

 

You are suggesting we remove legal residents from those numbers if they aren't citizens. As others have pointed out, that will likely require a Constitutional amendment.

 

Only the most recent example of adding the question has been bogusly challenged in the courts. This is not a tactic designed to win, because ultimately it will be declared constitutional if it gets that far before being a moot point. This is a tactic designed to attempt to run out the clock so that it is bogged down in the courts until it is too late to go to print in which case it would be moot. Nobody seriously believes that it wouldn't ultimately prevail in the courts. Do not bogusly pretend like the recent court ruling declared it unconstitutional because it most certainly did not. It merely sent it down to lower courts so that it can be ruled upon and THEN it is properly in the purview of the Supreme Court. That ruling was a victory for the left because it delays the process; it was not a victory on the actual merits of the case.

Putting forth bogus issues before the court for the purpose of stalling rather than winning on the merits is a misuse of our judicial system, but unfortunately misusing the judicial system is what the modern left does.

 

Nope, now they are not being counted accurately and their immigration status in this country is not being recorded honestly..

 

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

Send the left, and its willing supporters int the mainstream media, into a tizzy.
Mission accomplished.

 

Lolz ... RGB's almost old enough to remember when the amendments were ratified. Yes, everyone not born, or legally naturalized is subject to deportations. Visas and green cards can be revoked. Birth right citizenship cannot. Under certain circumstances legally naturalized citizenship can be revoked. The reality is that we deport millions. And right! as I said, it took multiple constitutional amendments to extend representation to women / slaves. No amendment extends representation to transient foreigners. Easy peasy ... just like 4th grade. ::

 

It does when you already know how many are here legally.

It's called subtraction.

 

We already have a count of the visas and green cards we've issued. And you are still wrong. You tried claiming that they aren't being counted because their citizenship status isn't being counted. The PEOPLE are still counted. Their citizenship status isn't.

Also, the citizenship question as it stands doesn't really do much to let us know about everyone's immigration status. It only answers citizen/non-citizen. That's it.

 

That's not AT ALL what the poster said ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Why do SSN cards have numbers on 'em?

 

Green cards are legal permanent residence. They can't be removed without due process. Although, to be fair, the Trump administration was stupid enough to actually try that. House representation is based on the number of residents, not the number of citizens. This has always been the case.

 

If only citizens count toward House representation, which IS what he suggested, then legal residents who aren't citizens wouldn't count. Folks, seriously, this ain't rocket surgery.

 

I'm not talking about information we HAVE, I'm talking about purposely avoiding asking questions about THOSE we don't have information on
You know ALL THE unknown FACTS!

 

Your "math" assumes that anyone who isn't a citizen is illegal. Care to try again?

 

How in hell can the issue of adding a citizenship question be made Constitutionally, unless it's done by Amendment?

Get over it, the Supreme Court said the reason to add the citizenship question at this time was contrived. Do you possess a concept of how important the Supreme Court is, or do you think the President is a king, who can do whatever he wants?

 

No, that has not always been the case.

 

Really? Try saying that in Germany, or England, or any other nation where you certainly pay the taxes and don't get a vote. OF course they don't let you become a citizen by squatting either. The only folks, who are whining about this are democrats who see their power diluted when the next round of apportionments don't count the illegals in their districts, and those districts must then be recalibrated. Think of CA losing 4-8 representatives... Joy.

 

Source?

 

No, it doesn't assume anything.

The federal government knows exactly how many green cards it has issued.

If 50 million people say "non-citizen" and we've issued 20 million green cards do you think we might be able to figure that one out?