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

I didn't say that, you make absurd assumptions and jump to crazy conclusion. Are you sure you understand this issue at all?

 

Adding the number of citizens to the number of valid green cards and visas, etc... then subtracting that sum from the total count of people, brings you to the number of illegals.

 

Were native americans able to vote or get representation, as just one example?

 

There's a real head scratcher huh?

 

Thats because you don't subscribe to accuracy! If a census show X amount of "registered voting Citizens" and the voters turn out is 5X that, then you have a problem.

 

Now you've just switched one bad assumption for another. Now you are assuming that everyone who isn't a citizen or a green card holder is illegal.

But let's assume you get it right in your next post. Your method would still require the belief that illegal immigrants are going to answer this question and answer it truthfully. So . . . still complete nonsense.

 

You are confused. Citizenship has been ascertained on every census since 1880 with the exception of 1960 and 2010. Since you didn't know that and instead incorrectly thought that a constitutional amendment would be required to ascertain that information, I can understand your confusion. Now you know. You are welcome.

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census-Bureaus-Birthplace-and-Citizenship-Questions-One-Tabledidnt

 

LOL... I doubt that it is that personal. I bet that it is more a case where liberals and democrats don't want the facts known at all.....

 

The assumption that everyone we've issued a visa to still remains here and that illegal immigrants are going to answer this question and answer it truthfully? Yeah, that fantasy is a head scratcher.

 

Yeah ^^ not an argument ^^. No .., the number of "residents" is not the EC standard. One more time for the s_l_o_w 4th graders. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html

 

If you can't figure out simple math like subtracting the number of green cards issued from total "non-citizen" responses to come up with an answer...

You might be a leftist mathematician.

 

No one subscribes to accuracy for accuracies sake absent utility. Anyone telling you that they do is lying. The census question didn't ask for registered voting citizens. And no on is deluded enough to believe that 5x the number of registered citizens vote. Also, we have counts of voter registrations.

 

Quick, to the goalposts.

 

Yes, it is the standard. Your link doesn't even try to argue otherwise. You can keep typing slower and talking about the 4th grade, but some homework would save you a lot of time.

 

IKR? It's a little advanced for some, apparently.

 

Weeee, when you can't address facts, there's always gifs. Also, that's not even what shifting goalposts is. I've found an additional flaw in your logic. That's not shifting anything. It is just an additional failing.

 

Sure we do, but you cant accurately prove that votes are legit because you don't have an accurate population census..

 

Yeah. Indians who don't pay taxes, and slaves who count as three fifths. That's where you say "it starts getting relevant"? So you want to include a "slavery" question in the census? There is an amendment you might want to look at before you try to do that.

So you want me to post the whole clause. Here it is....

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to 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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
​

And your point was..... What?

Make a point, already. Or admit you don't have one.

And you say I'm the one who hasn't read the Constitution! Looks like I have "accidentally" proven that you haven't read it. It wasn't my intention. But if you are going to make a point, you quote what you need in order to make your point. It's about time you start doing your own legwork. And learning something in the process.

 

I'm not confused and I know when the citizenship question was asked, like after WWII.

You can't understand anything, so why am I any different? Btw, I'm not the subject.

I census also once counted idiots, slaves and all kinds of particular things for various ages, so the past isn't a guide for the now.

 

Even including the citizenship question wouldn't address what you are talking about here.

 

It's not my fault you ran away from your old "we can't figure out subtraction" argument to "well they just won't answer anyway".

If they won't answer it correctly, then that's just another reason there's not a problem with putting the question on there.

Maybe some people will lie about their age and home ownership too.

How will we ever recover?

 

It's worse then that, we aren't even gonna ask if they are or aren't a citizen! We are just gonna guess and suppose they are, you know, something that breaths air and walks around upright!

 

-You mistakenly thought that asking about citizenship required a Constitutional Amendment. You were wrong, and I have proven as much. That mistake is the epitome of confusion. Sorry, but it is.

-The past IS a guide when you are bogusly claiming that doing something requires a Constitutional Amendment and instead you have 140 years of precedent to prove that notion incorrect. Sorry, but it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

^ Babbling ^ Millions of deportations establish that "persons" and citizens are not equals constitutionally. Representation can be, and has previously been granted to "persons" previously excluded. No amendment provides representation to foreign nationals. Explaining this in simpler terms would require crayons, and I don't have crayons. ::

 

It would address accuracy, something you seem to be dead set against, for what ever reason?