Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

(Illegal) Immigration and the Electoral College.

Jun 5, 2006 3:02PM PDT

Why are Congressional Districts apportioned based on total population? At first blush, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to apportion them based on the number of eligible voters. i.e. 18+, non-felon citizens. Heck, maybe even base it on the number of registered voters, or the number of ballots cast in the previous election. But basing it on total population flummoxes me.

By basing it on total population, aren't we essentially encouraging States to increase their population by any and all means, legal or otherwise? Wouldn't it be better if we instead encouraged more citizens to vote?

What am I missing here? - Mark

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Your position is that
Jun 7, 2006 10:21AM PDT

residency status is a factor in determination of representation. A positive assertion. I've stated and quoted the relevent passages that contain no such provision. At this point the responsibility is yours to support your assertion.

Or not. The choice is yours.

Dan

- Collapse -
I must be blind...
Jun 7, 2006 10:33AM PDT

where did you quote anything?

- Collapse -
Okay, I found it...
Jun 7, 2006 10:44AM PDT

still don't think you're right though. Being here illegally means, by definition, that you are not supposed to be here. I doubt the Founders contemplated counting those who were not supposed to be here at all.

Do they count visitors just passing through? I doubt it.

Think about it, It is clearly unfair. Any political party could affect tgeh Electoral vote by having all their members visit a state for the pertinent weekend.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It says what it says.
Jun 7, 2006 12:29PM PDT
- Collapse -
Seems open to interpretation ot me...
Jun 7, 2006 12:43PM PDT

A matter for the Courts.

It doesn't make sense that a foreign country could determine our elections or government fuctions by illegally moving large portions of their population here. I think it would obviously be illegal to do so.

Wondere what a lawyer would say.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) f-u-n-c-t-i-o-n-s a censored word? Since when???
Jun 7, 2006 12:45PM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: Seems open to interpretation ot me
Jun 7, 2006 1:35PM PDT

Unfortunately it's not. Dan's been hitting around the answer.

The original Article">http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.2.3]Article I Section 2

- Collapse -
Perhaps I should rephrase.
Jun 7, 2006 1:46PM PDT

While I did simply ask "why is it so?" in my original post, the implied question, which I think most folks got, is actually, "why is doing it this way a good idea?"

Mark

- Collapse -
Re: Perhaps I should rephrase.
Jun 7, 2006 1:52PM PDT

I don't think many will agree that the current system is a good idea even though it is the law. That law is itself set by the Congress and I'd wager that Congress wants the extra bodies counted even if they're not here legally.....Sad

- Collapse -
Perhaps I should apologize.
Jun 7, 2006 4:04PM PDT

First, I didn't mean to imply that you were among the people who didn't get my implied question. Your earlier reply, "Not really", in which you stated how you felt things should be, shows that you did, in fact, get it. (As does EdH's earlier reply in which he similarly said how he thought things were supposed to be.)

Second, I already knew the literal explanation--because the law says to apportion them based on the census, and the census is supposed to count everyone--so maybe if I had been clearer initially, you wouldn't've had to dig up the citations. So...

Sorry, my bad.

With that out of the way, I'm not so sure that all of Congress would want illegals counted. Obviously, the States that have a lot of illegal immigrants would, but it seems to me that the States that don't have a lot of illegal immigrants would want things changed.

So maybe there's hope? - Mark

- Collapse -
There's nothing to apologize for....
Jun 7, 2006 8:42PM PDT

And you're right, for those states with minimal immigrant populations, their power is diluted by the extra representatives in the states with large immigrant populations....

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I'll bet it could be challenged....
Jun 7, 2006 8:57PM PDT
- Collapse -
slavery went out yrs ago dan
Jun 6, 2006 4:12AM PDT

your words(Even persons who are property)
but evan democrats dont beleave in slavery oh wow they do you said soHappy
and if a persons in country unlawfully they dont have the right to vote unless your a democratic candidate and need to have a fixed election
amigo

- Collapse -
Mark, you're not making
Jun 6, 2006 7:55AM PDT

any sense. What are you trying to say?

Dan

- Collapse -
dan try to read your own words
Jun 6, 2006 8:18AM PDT

"Even persons who are property"
slavery went out remember the civil war?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yeah. But what's your point?
Jun 6, 2006 8:51AM PDT
- Collapse -
my point is you think
Jun 6, 2006 8:58AM PDT

were pre civil war as slavery is unlawfull or did u forget that?

- Collapse -
I'm sorry, Mark, but
Jun 7, 2006 2:50AM PDT

I didn't follow that post.

Dan

- Collapse -
ok dan ill speak real slow you
Jun 7, 2006 2:58AM PDT

said this
Even persons who are property< since when do we own people? as in slavery

was this slow enough? if not ask jr to spell it out for you as ray charles can read and understands.
and hes blind

- Collapse -
It's not the speed, Mark, but the clarity.
Jun 7, 2006 4:08AM PDT

You've clearly stated that I posted something. You've done that several times. What you've not made clear at all is what your point is in response to what I posted.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
dan do you support slavery
Jun 7, 2006 4:15AM PDT

by your own words you must

(Even persons who are property)< since when do we own people? as in slavery <<<

the words in brackets are yours so you think slavery is ok

end of game

- Collapse -
I must? Mark, your logic fails you.
Jun 7, 2006 10:18AM PDT

That conclusion does not follow at from what I said.

Dan

- Collapse -
dan before the cival war people
Jun 7, 2006 10:33AM PDT

were property =slaves

you stated

"Even persons who are property."henceforth your calenders off or your very confused

remember the north won the war no more slaves

- Collapse -
your responce proves why
Jun 6, 2006 4:09AM PDT

the democrats want illeagles in as they cant win any other way
if dale could hear you now hed would have a klipsion fit.
glad you democrats self destruct because your all dangerous

- Collapse -
I can't follow these
Jun 6, 2006 7:56AM PDT

statements, Mark. Please restate your idea.

Thanks,

Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) why you wouldnt understand if you tried
Jun 6, 2006 8:20AM PDT
- Collapse -
I tried, Mark.
Jun 6, 2006 8:53AM PDT

I did. But I couldn't understand. Sorry. If it is not important for you to be understood that's fine with me.

Dan

- Collapse -
Should be representing all the CITIZENS ...
Jun 6, 2006 3:46AM PDT

... not just anyone that lives there.

- Collapse -
Where do you get that?
Jun 6, 2006 7:58AM PDT

There's no provision regarding citizenship status for calculating representation.

Dan Happy

- Collapse -
I said SHOULD ...
Jun 6, 2006 8:07AM PDT

... and there is a gray area as to whether the Constitution applies to all humans that just happen to find themselves on US soil.