Should Illegal Aliens Be Represented in Congress?
~ The Rebel ~
2011/11/23 19:03:19
The state of Louisiana has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the inclusion of illegal aliens in the 2010 census count on which seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are apportioned among the states. The lawsuit asserts that Louisiana is one of five states which each lost one representative as a result of three other states gaining representation because of inclusion of such illegal aliens in the 2010 census count.
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution’s apportionment by population of the House of Representatives as requiring that,“as nearly as is practicable,one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.”Since only U.S. citizens can vote,and because the illegal alien population is unevenly distributed among the states,Louisiana asserts that the inclusion of such illegal alien population in the 2010 census count deprives Louisiana voters of their rightful representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Read More: http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/11/23/should-illeg...
Top Opinion
-
keeper 2011/11/23 19:07:15
We would never have ended up with 30 million plus illegal aliens without a maority representation in both houses. We would not have amnestied millions of other illegals or allowed for birthright citizenship. We would not have Spanish all over everything.
If you are considering them as though they had gone, when in fact they had not, then that seems quite unusual. The US Constitution mandates that a census must be conducted every ten years to determine the populations of the states. Those who are there but not citizens are still populating said state, are they not?
The fact is that they should not be populating any state in the US. No one should be rewarded for entering into a criminal conspiracy.
Secondly, it is rather naive on your part to assume that everyone who is there but not documented is part of a criminal conspiracy. One simple example is the case of Steve Li (see http://articles.sfgate.com/20... ). His parents had applied for political asylum, which was denied. That does not make him part of a criminal conspiracy. Happily for Steve, he won't soon be walking the streets of Peru but it should still give you pause when you realize that you have falsely lumped together relatively innocent (and quite productive) people in legitimate criminals.
Finally you should be aware that a good portion of the undocumented people there are in a visa-overstay status where their visa has expired but they have not left the USA. This is not a crime unless they fraudulently obtained their visa.
One is either in the US legally or illegally. One either has the proper paperwork or does not have the proper paperwork.
I am not writing a scholarly paper and if I miss punctuation on occasion, so be it.
Besides, now I can relax because I allow myself one mistake a day and I have just made it. I went several days without making a mistake and was at a complete loss.
I am very familiar with the situation and I am very well aware that nobody has a right to move to the US. We cannot accept everyone who wishes to move here.
Secondly, and even more basic, how would you feel if there was a law that restricted you from inviting people into your home. Perhaps, for example, you needed permission from your state to invite black people to come visit you. "After all," the Department of Visiting African-Americans explains, "they might not go back to where they came from."
Would you think that just?
Or what would you think of a law requiring people from Texas to get a visa before going to Oklahoma. They might not go back and Oklahoma, so the reasoning goes, cannot afford to accept all Texans that might want to move there.
You asked, "Would I think that just"? Read the above sentence again for my answer.
There is enough room for the whole population of Mexico to live in Peru, Yes, many skyscrapers would have to be built. The mountains would have to be hollowed for living quarters, the dirt and rock removed from the mountains would be used to fill the valleys.
For some reason, you fail to appreciate the difference between a country with a national border and a home where people live. If you do not understand the difference at this point in your life, I doubt that I could explain it to you and I will not try.
It is not a matter of me inviting people to my house. It is a matter of people coming to my house without invitations and expecting me to feed and clothe them and give them spending money, health care and many more things.
Some countries do require papers to travel from one side to another, but the US is not one of them and has never required it. You do realize that both Oklahoma and Texas lie within the United States and as I said some countries have made such requirements for permission, the US is not on of them.
Your English is very, very good, however, you really need to work on your reasoning skills.
Secondly, your claim that immigation is all about people coming into your house without invitations and expecting you to feed and clothe them is also false. A simple look at http://www.factcheck.org/2010... shows that economists overwhelmingly agree that immigrants (legal and otherwise) have a neutral or small net positive effect on the economy. The only segment that is consistently harmed by illegal immigration are high-school dropouts, who suffer an estimated 8% reduction in their wages. My proposed solution for those harmed is s...
Secondly, your claim that immigation is all about people coming into your house without invitations and expecting you to feed and clothe them is also false. A simple look at http://www.factcheck.org/2010... shows that economists overwhelmingly agree that immigrants (legal and otherwise) have a neutral or small net positive effect on the economy. The only segment that is consistently harmed by illegal immigration are high-school dropouts, who suffer an estimated 8% reduction in their wages. My proposed solution for those harmed is simple: Take the GED. It can't be that hard, can it?
Thirdly, let's cut to the crux of your you-have-no-reasoning-skills argument. There are four basic views about property in the world: 1. God made everything and God owns everything, hereinafter ("Bible Thumper Theory"). 2. People own themselves and the things that they create, and have the right to do what they please with the things they own, hereinafter ("Libertarian Theory"), 3. Property does not exist and only the force of government maintains it, hereinafter ("Anarcho-socialist Theory"); and, 4. The government should own and control everything, and the people should have permission from the State before they can do anything, hereinafter ("Fascist Government Theory").
Now I will state, for the record, that I'm clearly in the Libertarian Theory fold. As far as I'm concerned, if I buy a condo with my money that I got from working, and I want to move 20 other Spanish-speaking people in with me, and run around with them mowing lawns, painting houses, gardening, and standing outside Home Depot looking for people who want to hire us, that's entirely my right and it's none of your effing business. Similarly if I want to move to Canada, Spain, Indonesia, Australia, or some other place to do the same thing, it's still none of your effing business.
It sounds very much like you subscribe to the Fascist Government Theory - that somehow the government magically owns all of the USA despite never having bought it from anyone and that it can, therefore, tell everyone what they can do with everything; including, but not limited to, what you can smoke, what you can eat, what you can drink, where you can live, who you can hire, etc., etc.
Now if that's your point of view, at least have the courage of your convictions and say it straight out, but don't try to hide how you feel behind ideas that my reasoning skills are deficient. Or, dare I say it, do you just not like people whose skins are darker than yours?
I don't want to be that crowded Besides, there is not enough water.
Factcheck and its cohorts are all leftist shills and their info is propaganda.
Peru can take all the illegals because it will not hurt their economy.
Learn Liberty is a libertarian website. As such, you cannot claim that they are leftist shills.
Ditto for http://www.cato.org/pubs/hand...
Just one of the many quotes from the article is the following:
Today, approximately 7.5 percent of the U.S. population are legal
immigrants and 9 percent are foreign born, which is significantly lower than the proportion—13 percent or higher—during the period from 1860 to 1930.
I see a lot of misinformation or outright lies to the point where I had my fill in about 4 pages.
I don't know if that drivel contains anything about the Turner Thesis, but the Turner Thesis stated that there was no longer a clearly deliniated frontier in the US. Not every place was settled, but there it was getting there.
I can produce some statistics that disprove all Liberal org and Cato have stated, but first lets look at some anecdotal data.
Claim: Immigrants contribute more to society than they consume.
The problem with that is plain facts.
Hospitals are closing in the border areas because they are being bankrupted by illegal aliens.
Schools are facing budget cuts for the same reason.
Social Services have run out of money.
One third of all prisoners are illegal aliens. Way above their proportion.
Every proposed law that wishes to make the illegals legal, contains billions of dollars to help the above entities recoup their loses.
Like I said, I can produce links, but you cannot dispell my anecdotal data.
Concerning the ability to speak English among 2d generation immigrants. If it was as you say, Spanish would not be printed on everything if that were true.
So basically just by letting them enter legally you can cut the prison costs of aliens by 47 percent.
Of course I love all your anecdotal data. The problem with it is, it's anecdotal. I could tell you anecdotes about working alongside hard-working hispanics in Los Angeles, but I doubt you care.
Odds favor Amnesty happening so there is something else you need to consider. Who will sign the welfare checks when you get your way?
If your facts were so good, Mexico would be trying to keep its people and would be more tolerant towards the illegals coming in their southern border.
If illegal immigrantion were so beneficial, Peru would encourage them to move there.
But then why did you come north to find a job?
The discussion is not about hard work, it is about the legality of the matter.
Now, I looked on the web to see who were the people getting welfare. The first link I found was http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo... which indicates that AFDC goes 38.8% white, 37.2% black, 17.8% hispanic, 2.8% Asian, and 3.4% other. It seems, therefore, that the real problem with welfare are African Americans.
Additionally, if the problem is the legality of the matter, the solution is simple: Make it legal for anyone to go to the USA unless they have a felony conviction in their home country.
You are the one confused. I am not sure which part of I don't want any illegal aliens here, that you do not understand. If you had understood what I had written, people can go south for a job instead of north.
When the illegal aliens go home, there will be less other people on welfare becaues there will be more jobs.
I do not care if they are on welfare or not, illegal aliens need to be deported.
Surely you realize that there is no reason to believe that what you have said is true.
From Alan Greenspan Ph.D.
""[T]here is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor force. The illegal part of the civilian labor force diminished last year as the economy slowed, though illegals still comprised an estimated 5% of our total civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters.
Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.
However the estimated wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs."
Of course you remember that Alan Greenspan was appointed by Ronald Reagan so surely you cannot write his opinion off as left-wing bias.
Let the illegals contribute to the growth of Peru and you can have Greenspan as well, since he is in part responsible for our current mess.
Illegals take out far more than they contribute to the economy. Which is why any bill to legalize the illegal aliens always includes money for schools, hospitals, social services in the affected areas.
The $25,000 dollars is not a guess on my part, some researchers came up with that amount. Personally, I think it is too low.
Just like the hospitals, schools, etc. going bankrupt because they serve illegals and receive nothing in return.
Peru needs to host the all the illegal aliens of the world so that Peru can receive the benefits that they bring.
And as for all the wonderful benefits of illegals, I'll be glad to have them.
By the way, in case you haven't noticed, your economy sucks and ours has been growing at 8 percent annually for the past few years. Maybe you should take notes.
(WHAT part of the term ILLEGAL Do these Politicians NOT understand still?)