Noncitizens causing over representation!

Happy_Killbot

Non-citizens living in the US should definitely still be counted in the census because even if they are not allowed to vote, this data should still be acquired to be used in other purposes. The real problem is that most illegal immigrants will not fill out the census papers, because they have no motivation to do so, which kind of makes the problem you are proposing a null point.

I think the census as we currently do it is an outdated method of data collection, as modern incantations such as using social media platforms would probably give a much more accurate representation of how many people were there anyways. The tools currently used by government surveillance agencies probably collect more data on any given day than the census has done throughout US history.

TKDB

@MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

It's a Liberal chess match, being waged to benefit their individual Political careers, and their illegal immigrant followers.

When Trump tried to add his question to the U.S. Census it got blocked.

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/11/trump-census-citizenship-question-supreme-court?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15773739181209&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/11/trump-census-citizenship-question-supreme-court 

Census

"Trump abandons effort to put citizenship question on 2020 census

• Trump drops census proposal and blames ‘radical left’
• Executive order tells federal agencies to turn over citizenship data"

https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1028656?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15773739181209&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-expected-order-citizenship-question-added-census-n1028656 

"Trump backs off census citizenship question, issues order to collect data in other ways

The president's announcement comes after the Supreme Court blocked the administration."

"Opponents of putting the question on the census form itself — the short form that goes to every household — have said that noncitizens tend not to respond, making that method of determining citizenship unreliable."

So basically the pro Illegal Immigrant Liberals, are getting their way, while the rest of the non Liberal public, and the non illegal immigrant supporters, have to suffer along, and live with some of those Liberals, and their pro illegal immigrant policies.

I wonder, exactly how healthy is that type of Liberal hypocrisy, for the rest of the law abiding country, and it's law abiding citizens?

Apparently it's healthy for the pro illegal immigrant policies, of those pro illegal immigrant Liberals? 

This is the type of Freedom, that some of the Liberals in the United States, want the rest of the country to mentality wise adopt, in order, to suit the needs, wants, and desires, of their illegal immigrant populations, that are living throughout the U.S., via those illegally created, Sanctuary Cities.

Being that we're a country of Laws.

MayCaesar

I fail to see why this should be the case. If a non-citizen lives in the US, pays taxes and does everything else other Americans do, then why should they not get representation? If I am correct, after 5 years of living in the US one automatically gets the "resident" status for tax purposes, essentially paying the same taxes as other Americans. So if the person makes the same contribution as other Americans, and their only difference from other Americans is lack of the "citizen" check mark in the database, then what is wrong with giving them the same benefits, including the representation in the government?

Now, I personally do not want any representation, and I do not even know if I will still be living in the US, say, 10 years from now: I am a fairly mobile person and will easily move to another country if a better opportunity there arises. But by the same token, any American citizen can eventually relinquish their citizenship and move somewhere else, so this should not affect anything. I do not want representation personally, but in principle I do not see why I should not get it.

I am a citizen of Russia, and I could not care less what goes on there; my life is here, in the US, and it is only logical for me to be represented here, rather than six thousands miles away from where I live. And even more so it applies to permanent residents, who officially are expected to live in the US permanently, and who are only separated from becoming a citizen by time required to become eligible for naturalisation.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. Can a non citizen even pay all the taxes that citizens pay if theyre not on the record?

Also i do think that is fair anyhow.  Only citizens should truly have the vote because others may have divided loyalties.   Also liberal cities should not gain an advantage by loading up cities up with illegal immigrants.  And where is the defined line for how long they have to be there.

If you want to permanently reside in America and want a vote you should have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship to show that is where your loyalty lies.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

They can or can not, same as any other American. An American citizen can just as much find a job on the black market where he/she will not have to pay taxes, as any non-citizen.

Can American citizens not have divided loyalties? First, the US allows for the person to have dual, triple and so on citizenships. Then, pure American citizens often work for foreign governments, or for international organisations not affiliated with any particular government. Finally, there are many people in America who do not have the loyalty to the current system and want it changed, sometimes through violent means.

The process of naturalisation does not have much to do with loyalty; it is a simple bureaucratic procedure. First, you need to make sure that you qualify for a Green Card and apply for it, and there are many ways to do so. Then, you just need to wait for 5 years and reside for a significant fraction of that time on the US territory - and you can apply for citizenship. Throughout this time you may work for foreign governments, you may hate America deeply and so on, and none of this has any impact on your ability to become citizen.
There have been naturalised individuals that have committed terrorist acts against Americans, such as the Boston bomber who became citizen less than a year before the attack. This does not look like a display of loyalty to me.

Every argument you made applies equally to both citizens and non-citizens. Now, you could say that statistically citizens tend to be more loyal (to what, by the way? Government? People? Territory? Ideology?) than non-citizens, and that may be true, but statistics is a poor basis for lawmaking.

Me personally, I do not want to vote, and even if I could, I would not. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your argument. I am a citizen of Russia currently, yet I could not care less about Russia. It would seem that citizenship is just a small line on one's record that does not really define anything.
You would have a better case arguing in favor of only granting voting rights and representation to those people who have lived in the US for a certain period of time. That would make sense since it would ensure that only those are represented who actually live here, and temporary visitors are excluded. I think Australia uses such a system, where one has to reside on its territory for a total of 15 years to gain official representation.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. Again though i also dont think we should incentivize states to take in illegals in order to gain more representation.

Also i dont think you have representation for doing something illegal.  Maybe if your a legal green card holder living in America for a certain number of years thats is an exception.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

Well, in most countries, the US included, citizens imprisoned for even the worst possible crimes are still allowed to vote and have representation. Is it reasonable that a serial murderer who just happened to be born in the US has representation, but a guy who crossed the border illegally to save his starving family does not, from this standpoint?

See, I do not buy all these illegality and loyalty arguments. It seems more reasonable to expect representation based on contribution to the economy, rather than on some arbitrary legal status.

Dee

***** .  This would help incentivize people to pay taxes/ dont commit fraud against the government 

Really? The top 0:5% earners in the U S underpaid 50 billion dollars in tax,  to be consistent with your claim they’re frauds why should they be allowed vote?

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar I do not agree that serial killers should get a vote either.

Also then it sounds like you tgink people who dont pay taxes shouldn't get a vote

MichaelElpers

@Dee. Well if the irs determined that they didnt pay what they were supposed to then yeah.  

Dee

@MichaelElpers


***** . Well if the irs determined that they didnt pay what they were supposed to then yeah.  

And we know that’s not the case so you point is invalid 

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar ;@MichaelElpers

In the US, prisoners who have a sentence of 3 years or longer are not allowed to vote in federal elections. State regulations vary from state to state, but on the whole do not give most criminals voting rights.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I think that everyone should get a vote, but if we are to exclude a fraction of the population from the voting process for any reason whatsoever, then this reason better be lack of contribution to the institutions which voting process affects, hence, yes, people who do not pay taxes should get less representation, if any, than those who do.


@Happy_Killbot

Fair enough, but they still get representation, in the sense that they are counted when calculating how many representatives various cities/states should have in the government, right?

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar As far as I know they do.

Come to think of it, that's probably a bigger problem than what we are discussing in this thread because what districts should you count the inmates in when drawing up congressional districts?

If there is a fat federal prison in your area, then you could potentially draw the lines to give that district a fat population, because the inmates won't vote for the most part you could milk that district for additional representation.

I would have to do some research on this, but that would be something to look into.

MichaelElpers

@Dee Im making an argument  about things that should be in place

all4actt

The census needs to be taken but I do believe the question of citizenship should be included.  Not being a citizen living in the USA does not necessarily mean you are here illegally.  It just needs to barred from being used by law enforcement to identify non citizens.  That way illegal immigrants can feel safe to answer the census.

AnuragB

It is illegal to release any private information from a census, and there are several security measures to prevent that. However, some people don't trust this, especially if it concerns something as devestating as immigration status @all4actt ;