Welcome to PatsFans.com

2010 census looking not so good...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by efin98, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    2010 is the decennial census...Massachusetts is going to lose a seat in the House by all projections, down from 10 seats to 9 while Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire stay the same.

    The big losers appear to be "blue states": in additon to the 1 from Massachusetts, New York loses 2 and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois lose 1 each. "red states" see Louisiana, Iowa, Missouri losing 1 and Ohio losing 2.

    The big winners in the census may be "red" states: Texas may gain 4, Arizona 2, Georgia, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nevada 1. Florida may be a swing state with 2 more seats gain.
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,037
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +195 / 7 / -23

    You never know if Michelle Bachman et al continue to run their mouth about the Obama Acorn "Census conspiracy", a lot of the folks in red states may not respond.. the law of unintended consequences...
  3. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    From what I'm seeing, they may be looking at a Supreme Court ruling at some point regarding censuses...whether to include or exclude illegals and/or people who refuse to respond to the surveys and workers' visits.

    California could by all means gain four instead of losing one seat with the force of the illegals...New York and Massachusetts maybe stay the same.
  4. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Should illegal numbers affect representation in Congress if they're not allowed to vote? I could understand (but disagree with) the idea that you have to know how many are in the state to estimate costs, but there's no reason I can see to include them in a head count for # of reps.
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    All those southern states are the first stop for the tens of thousands of illegals that sneak into America each month.

    Great. Give all those states the extra seats, take 'em away from the northeast bastion of liberal wonk wankers, ... but-t-t-t in order for people to vote, they MUST pass a strict English language test; no pass, no vote, PERIOD. To hell with all this "bi-lingual" education crap. Do they have "bi-lingual" education in Mexico??? In Nicaragua??? in Venezuela??? Nahh, didn't think so. Speak English well, be legal, or NO VOTE. And if you ain't legal, send you back, C.O.D.



    //
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,939
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +208 / 3 / -10

    Illegals can't be counted in any US census...nor should they be. Representation in congress is determined by the number os US CITIZENS in their districts. Illegals don't count in many ways. They don't count in determining gov't representation AND they don't count as far as policy. In other words, it would be unconstitutional for any law to be passed that would help illegals with our tax dollars.

    Once again, that's the way it should be.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,037
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +195 / 7 / -23

    I suspect that the talk about including illegals is just a talking point, from a constitutional point of view and from a illegal point of view, Michelle Bachman started some of the hysteria when she whined about how there is no question on it regarding resident status.... most illegals do not want to fill out personal information about themselves and their situation.
  8. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That is your interpretation of how things MAY be...but it's not you who will make that determination, it's the nine justices in Washington who eventually will.
  9. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    But how could there be any legal justification? That case would be 9-0 against I suspect. There is simply no way the Constitution allows for changing representation in Congress in order to account for people who do not vote and should have no representation in Congress, right?
  10. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    The Constitution mentions people, not citizens. Specifically it says 'free people' but that's in reference to slaves counting as 3/5's of a person for enumeration purposes. They do exempt untaxed Indians in the document, maybe illegals would be considered Indians today; but they do say untaxed Indians and nobody escapes all taxes.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2009
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,842
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    9-0? I'd hope so, but just last year we had a ruling regarding the 2nd amendment that went 5-4! Do you think Sotomayor, you know, the enlightened latina, would vote against counting illegals, who are predominently hispanic? Hell no. My guess is that she wouldn't be alone either.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,842
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    What's funny is that we can ask illegals to answer questions in a census, or count them in one, and yet we can't actually round them up and deport them as we should. Go figure.
  13. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I agree and also think we should tighten the borders to prevent further illegals from coming in, BUT... what do you do with the ones already here? Are you for or against some sort of process where over time they can become citizens? If you keep them permanently out of the system, they have more incentive to send money to Mexico, rather than say for mortgage payments which keeps money in the border.
  14. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That was what the precedent I think people may try to use...

    Article 1, section 2 as it was enacted:


    Clause 2 of the 14th amendment specifically forces the freed slaves and can also be used as basis for them to be counted in the US Census even if they are illegally in the country...

    .

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>