Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 Census to have Citzenship Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Karri
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    And, that would have happened even if the Europeans were "fair" to the various tribes. Over time, the Europeans would have been able to 'buy out" the Indians simply on the basis of greater wealth and productivity. They would have subsumed them. At least the more established tribes. The hunter-gatherer type tribes were simply doomed. They had no established claim to a territory and were nomads. Their reliance on things like Buffalo would have been destroyed simply through competition for the animal, as happened historically (eg., the Europeans would shoot the animals in huge numbers for skins or whatever leaving none for the Indians). Add in that as land got settled (by whomever) and fenced a nomadic lifestyle was doomed. Barbed wire doomed the Plains Indians.

    Even if the Europeans were some sort of immigrants that came and were buying the land fairly from the Indians and settling with their permission, the Indians were doomed. Europeans vastly outnumbered them. Once they are established they simply purchase more land and then sell it to new European immigrants. One population displaces another. So? That's celebrated today when it's so-called "minorities" doing this to "Whites."
    That's not what happened in Africa or Asia though.

    I think the story is so different in North and South America because disease basically wiped out the established populations and power structures. With both population and power vacuum the story was over for the natives.

    To ever have had a chance to resist the change they would have had needed several centuries to rebuild all that was lost. Those centuries instead saw...well, the build up of colonial powers.

    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    I think you make a reasonable point. The Europeans were not supportive of indian culture or rights.
    You are right about the victors writing history in this instance because the indians pretty much didn't keep such records.

    I used LaSalle and MarQuette though because their purpose was different than the colonists so their perspective would have been different.
    My overall point has been that the native americans were no different than the invading europeans. The Europeans were just more successful in taking the land. For a variety of reasons not worth discussing here.
    The mesoamerican cultures kept records, but those were mostly destroyed or just forgotten.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    It seems that ruling would apply to funding for emergency rooms and schools. OTOH, it seems that other funding, such as energy assistance, housing, so on and so forth would not necessarily fall within the scope of that ruling. It would appear that a more concise policy must needs be written, and eventually a more specific ruling issued by SCOTUS with reference to such things. After all, there should not be a reward for knowingly and willfully encouraging criminal activity to occur.
    I agree that it is an open question regarding other types of funding. It will be a matter of how SCOTUS will apply the Equal Protection Clause. And I also agree that encouragement of illegal immigration should not be rewarded by the feds.
    By the way, thanks for the short and to the point posts which do not try to score cheap political points. This is quite rare here...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I'm not sure how many Americans agree with the so-called "rights of illegals", nor am I clear on how those alleged "rights" were determined to exist in the first place.
    I think if most Americans were given a true and reasonably accurate picture of illegal immigration they'd clamor for an end to it to the extent possible. Right now, the bulk of the MSM plays off anecdote and fiction as to the state of illegal immigration.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    BFD... School districts still turn away lots of illegals for a whole raft of reasons, getting around that decision. The impose all sorts of barriers to discourage illegals from applying, or make it difficult to impossible for them to apply and get accepted.
    Age, residency, previous school records, medical or health issues, mental health issues, all can be used to deny an applicant.

    http://neatoday.org/2016/04/22/undoc...ublic-schools/

    For instance, in Arizona the Ajo school District in Southern Arizona had a huge issue with not so much illegal immigrants as Mexican nationals putting their kids in the schools. What the Mexican parents were doing was registering their kids and then legally crossing the border and having the kids bused to the schools in Ajo.

    So, the school district clamped down on this by requiring proof of residency in the school district. No proof, no attendance.

    http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/news/6...to-board-buses

    So, illegals are denied public school access for all intents despite Plyler.
    I'm not sure how many Americans agree with the so-called "rights of illegals", nor am I clear on how those alleged "rights" were determined to exist in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post
    I used to the word colonizers as a simple reference to anyone who wasn't a native american. The point being that all the history about native americans was written by the victors...those who destroyed or whose arrival led to the destruction of all that was native American.

    Not that I disagree with you. It was just an interjection in the discussion.

    However, I don't think this is comparable to the current situation. USA is drawing immigrants because it is the stronger culture, not because other stronger cultures sense a weakness to exploited and resources to be had.

    I mean it's not like the settlers joined the Indian tribes, they simply displaced them.
    And, that would have happened even if the Europeans were "fair" to the various tribes. Over time, the Europeans would have been able to 'buy out" the Indians simply on the basis of greater wealth and productivity. They would have subsumed them. At least the more established tribes. The hunter-gatherer type tribes were simply doomed. They had no established claim to a territory and were nomads. Their reliance on things like Buffalo would have been destroyed simply through competition for the animal, as happened historically (eg., the Europeans would shoot the animals in huge numbers for skins or whatever leaving none for the Indians). Add in that as land got settled (by whomever) and fenced a nomadic lifestyle was doomed. Barbed wire doomed the Plains Indians.

    Even if the Europeans were some sort of immigrants that came and were buying the land fairly from the Indians and settling with their permission, the Indians were doomed. Europeans vastly outnumbered them. Once they are established they simply purchase more land and then sell it to new European immigrants. One population displaces another. So? That's celebrated today when it's so-called "minorities" doing this to "Whites."

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post
    I used to the word colonizers as a simple reference to anyone who wasn't a native american. The point being that all the history about native americans was written by the victors...those who destroyed or whose arrival led to the destruction of all that was native American.

    Not that I disagree with you. It was just an interjection in the discussion.

    However, I don't think this is comparable to the current situation. USA is drawing immigrants because it is the stronger culture, not because other stronger cultures sense a weakness to exploited and resources to be had.

    I mean it's not like the settlers joined the Indian tribes, they simply displaced them.


    I think you make a reasonable point. The Europeans were not supportive of indian culture or rights.
    You are right about the victors writing history in this instance because the indians pretty much didn't keep such records.

    I used LaSalle and MarQuette though because their purpose was different than the colonists so their perspective would have been different.
    My overall point has been that the native americans were no different than the invading europeans. The Europeans were just more successful in taking the land. For a variety of reasons not worth discussing here.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Here is one case I found related to the rights that illegal aliens have in the US


    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../202/case.html


    Bold mine

    Obviously, rights held by illegal aliens create additional financial needs for the states. Moreover, even if there are states which encourage illegal immigration, it does not change the fact that the illegal immigrants still have certain rights which must be protected. Withholding funds to punish "misbehaved states" cannot happen by violating the protection of illegal aliens' recognized rights.
    BFD... School districts still turn away lots of illegals for a whole raft of reasons, getting around that decision. The impose all sorts of barriers to discourage illegals from applying, or make it difficult to impossible for them to apply and get accepted.
    Age, residency, previous school records, medical or health issues, mental health issues, all can be used to deny an applicant.

    http://neatoday.org/2016/04/22/undoc...ublic-schools/

    For instance, in Arizona the Ajo school District in Southern Arizona had a huge issue with not so much illegal immigrants as Mexican nationals putting their kids in the schools. What the Mexican parents were doing was registering their kids and then legally crossing the border and having the kids bused to the schools in Ajo.

    So, the school district clamped down on this by requiring proof of residency in the school district. No proof, no attendance.

    http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/news/6...to-board-buses

    So, illegals are denied public school access for all intents despite Plyler.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    So they don't really have to be a "colonist" for you to consider them a "colonist".

    Please identify that culture that did not assume it was superior to all other cultures.
    The Indian tribes looked down on the whites by the way. They would have happily dominated (or destroyed) the white settlers if they could have. They tried repeatedly. That makes them just like all other humans.


    It may interest you to know that the indian tribes also treated each other as not being worthy of their own sovereignty.
    The Iroquois didn't dominate the other indian tribes because they were compassionate and loving, they dominated the surrounding tribes by being brutal and strong.

    I doubt that there is a single nation in existence that didn't have its borders determined by war and conquest.
    I used to the word colonizers as a simple reference to anyone who wasn't a native american. The point being that all the history about native americans was written by the victors...those who destroyed or whose arrival led to the destruction of all that was native American.

    Not that I disagree with you. It was just an interjection in the discussion.

    However, I don't think this is comparable to the current situation. USA is drawing immigrants because it is the stronger culture, not because other stronger cultures sense a weakness to exploited and resources to be had.

    I mean it's not like the settlers joined the Indian tribes, they simply displaced them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    I made very clear that it is not that people are colonists just because they "merely" came here. I also came her... It is the belief that these savage indigenous people were not worthy of sovereignty and would be better off under the Christian Europeans that makes a newcomer a colonist...


    So they don't really have to be a "colonist" for you to consider them a "colonist".

    Please identify that culture that did not assume it was superior to all other cultures.
    The Indian tribes looked down on the whites by the way. They would have happily dominated (or destroyed) the white settlers if they could have. They tried repeatedly. That makes them just like all other humans.


    It may interest you to know that the indian tribes also treated each other as not being worthy of their own sovereignty.
    The Iroquois didn't dominate the other indian tribes because they were compassionate and loving, they dominated the surrounding tribes by being brutal and strong.

    I doubt that there is a single nation in existence that didn't have its borders determined by war and conquest.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    It seems that ruling would apply to funding for emergency rooms and schools. OTOH, it seems that other funding, such as energy assistance, housing, so on and so forth would not necessarily fall within the scope of that ruling. It would appear that a more concise policy must needs be written, and eventually a more specific ruling issued by SCOTUS with reference to such things. After all, there should not be a reward for knowingly and willfully encouraging criminal activity to occur.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Here is one case I found related to the rights that illegal aliens have in the US


    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../202/case.html



    U.S. Supreme Court

    Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

    Plyler v. Doe

    No. 80-1538

    Argued December 1, 1981

    Decided June 15, 1982*

    457 U.S. 202


    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

    THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

    Syllabus

    Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Bold mine

    Obviously, rights held by illegal aliens create additional financial needs for the states. Moreover, even if there are states which encourage illegal immigration, it does not change the fact that the illegal immigrants still have certain rights which must be protected. Withholding funds to punish "misbehaved states" cannot happen by violating the protection of illegal aliens' recognized rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    I can accept federal funds being distributed by the say "A list" of "persons present", so long as representation is defined to "persons who are or shall be eligible to vote (aka Citizens)". I don't think a sanctuary state should receive congressional representation for its activities disproportionate to one which is following the law.

    As far as federal funds go, my thoughts are to restrain cuts to those cities and states who "Knowingly and Willfully" engage or encourage criminal activity in violation of the law. And Criminal Aliens need to be addressed, but I agree that the Census is not the correct methodology for doing same.

    Bold mine
    If I recall well, there is a SCOTUS decision which actually rejected this argument of excluding illegal residents for calculating received fed funds because even illegal residents have certain rights which generate additional expenses, such as, sending their kids to public schools or getting emergency healthcare. Are you aware of this SCOTUS decision? I do not have it available right now, but I can search for it if nobody can provide more details

    Edited the original post because I bolded the wrong section

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    I also do not see any problem with including such question in the Census as long as it is not an issue of self-incrimination as you pointed out. And yes, I am a permanent non-citizen resident.
    HOWEVER, I DO have some reservations if an administration plans to use such Census results to determine different types of federal funds appropriated to the States by trying to estimate the number of illegal residents.
    I can accept federal funds being distributed by the say "A list" of "persons present", so long as representation is defined to "persons who are or shall be eligible to vote (aka Citizens)". I don't think a sanctuary state should receive congressional representation for its activities disproportionate to one which is following the law.

    As far as federal funds go, my thoughts are to restrain cuts to those cities and states who "Knowingly and Willfully" engage or encourage criminal activity in violation of the law. And Criminal Aliens need to be addressed, but I agree that the Census is not the correct methodology for doing same.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    Getting back to the Original question, I fail to see why it would be inherently wrong to ask this question:

    1) There's no enforcement, so it's not a 5th Amendment violation of self-incrimination.

    2) There are any number of legitimate legal residents who are also non-citizens. One of my co-workers has a wife who is legally a British Subject, not an American Citizen....she sees no need to apply for citizenship and just gets her permanent residency renewed on schedule. That's just an example of a non-citizen who is not an illegal, so the question isn't specifically hunting for "Criminal Aliens" who BTW by the nature of being Criminal Aliens wouldn't enjoy all the same protections in the first place.

    3) Being a citizen does endow certain specific rights, such as the right to vote, that are not specifically endowed to all non-citizens. The purpose of the Census, by Law, is to determine distribution of representatives. Therefore, persons who can not have the right to vote for representation should not be included into calculations on representation.

    4) The ones complaining about this are not complaining with reference to legal permanent residents who are non-citizens. The complaints are coming from cities and states who have generally made their opinions on the protection of Criminal Aliens known. It is therefore logical and reasonable to deduce that such states and cities are desiring for their non-citizens to be counted for representation purposes in order to artificially skew representation in Congress in favor of their locales, specifically to ensure that Criminal Aliens are counted to their benefit with respect to representation in Congress and monies provided by the Federal Government to the locale at taxpayer expense.
    I also do not see any problem with including such question in the Census as long as it is not an issue of self-incrimination as you pointed out. And yes, I am a permanent non-citizen resident.
    HOWEVER, I DO have some reservations if an administration plans to use such Census results to determine different types of federal funds appropriated to the States by trying to estimate the number of illegal residents. And I think it is the issue of funds that creates concerns and not the issue of representation.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Getting back to the Original question, I fail to see why it would be inherently wrong to ask this question:

    1) There's no enforcement, so it's not a 5th Amendment violation of self-incrimination.

    2) There are any number of legitimate legal residents who are also non-citizens. One of my co-workers has a wife who is legally a British Subject, not an American Citizen....she sees no need to apply for citizenship and just gets her permanent residency renewed on schedule. That's just an example of a non-citizen who is not an illegal, so the question isn't specifically hunting for "Criminal Aliens" who BTW by the nature of being Criminal Aliens wouldn't enjoy all the same protections in the first place.

    3) Being a citizen does endow certain specific rights, such as the right to vote, that are not specifically endowed to all non-citizens. The purpose of the Census, by Law, is to determine distribution of representatives. Therefore, persons who can not have the right to vote for representation should not be included into calculations on representation.

    4) The ones complaining about this are not complaining with reference to legal permanent residents who are non-citizens. The complaints are coming from cities and states who have generally made their opinions on the protection of Criminal Aliens known. It is therefore logical and reasonable to deduce that such states and cities are desiring for their non-citizens to be counted for representation purposes in order to artificially skew representation in Congress in favor of their locales, specifically to ensure that Criminal Aliens are counted to their benefit with respect to representation in Congress and monies provided by the Federal Government to the locale at taxpayer expense.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X