- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Politics makes for interesting conversations. Let’s try this one:
Trump is trying to ensure that illegal immigrants are not counted when it comes to apportioning congressional representation. The logic is sound if offputting: they are illegal, can’t vote, and therefore shouldn’t be given the weight of representation.
If I refer back to the CEB post about the electoral college and the discussion about the EC affording small states too much weight, I think we get into an interesting ideological knot.
To wit the same people who believe the structural form of the constitution and EC weakens the vote of people in large states would say that it is perfectly fine for illegals to be counted for representation; effectively strengthening the vote of people who allow more illegals in their midst (think sanctuary cities), and weakening the vote of those areas that are more hard line on illegal immigration.
I think that they shouldn’t be counted for apportionment. This is a very similar issue as the one about counting slaves that led to the 3/5ths compromise, where people who benefit from illegal immigration (or, slavery back in the 18th century) want whole representation and steering power of a large block of disenfranchised people. That usually gives marginally more power to the folks who want the disenfranchised to stay that way.
What say you, ceb brain trust?
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
I know nothing about the constitutional framework regarding the census nor how that framework integrates with the electoral college or legislative apportionment.
That doesn’t stop me from having an opinion. If the argument is made that they should be counted and their numbers should be reflected in legislative apportionment and electoral processes what rule is driving the argument for inclusion?
Should anyone anywhere in the world be eligible to be counted in the US census? Is it instead driven by residency? If residency, what constitutes residency? A hotel room taken for a night to facilitate the completion of the census form? If not one night in each ten year cycle at the local Four Seasons, how many nights make someone eligible to participate in the census? Would nights in ICE detention facilities meet the standard? How about criminal incarceration?
The rights and privileges of citizenship seem as though they should accrue to citizens? The voting franchise, participation in our representative democracy and the voting process designs accommodate citizens living overseas while deliberately excluding the citizens of the host country. How is that appropriate if census participation is driven by some vague residency standard? Why do our overseas nationals get to participate?
When the nation was formed we didn’t allow British nationals to participate in, or influence our elections. Nor the Germans. The fact we were at war and they were on the other side is an obvious basis for the restriction. Similarly, the French were excluded even though they fought with us. All three were in the country fighting and dying. So how can one justify making simple residency the controlling standard for eligibility now?
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long -
That’s a heck of a response, Bob. The references to foreign combatants on U.S. soil and US Citizens living abroad are golden. Once again, logic is a tough mother.
Your line about rights and privileges of citizenship only accruing to citizens is a good one and incites a lot of arguments from the left. CA Prop 187 and the debate around it was a good example of that conflict writ large that cause a lot of liberal lashing out.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.