Red Mosquito

I'm not sure which I want more... my own death or theirs.

durdencommatyler wrote:

I too frown at the idea of democratically elected officials representing the citizens who vote for them

Bi_3 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

I too frown at the idea of democratically elected officials representing the citizens who vote for them

Frown? Did you have a stroke?

durdencommatyler wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

I too frown at the idea of democratically elected officials representing the citizens who vote for them

Frown? Did you have a stroke?

ITS JUST HOW MY FACE IS

Bi_3 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

I too frown at the idea of democratically elected officials representing the citizens who vote for them

Frown? Did you have a stroke?

ITS JUST HOW MY FACE IS

And your face is beautiful

USA! USA! USA!

I cannot imagine the amount of internal distortion required to look at the actual things said by the creators of and the legal defense team for this question, and say “this is being done for reasons other than to imbalance the representation of political ideologies in this country.”

Current oval office occupant notwithstanding, what is inherently wrong about counting the population of a country and tallying how many are citizens or not?

Bammer wrote:Current oval office occupant notwithstanding, what is inherently wrong about counting the population of a country and tallying how many are citizens or not?

The main argument is that immigrants documented and undocumented will avoid the census due to mistrust causing under reporting in areas with large immigrant populations and a loss of federal services to those area despite their need.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:Current oval office occupant notwithstanding, what is inherently wrong about counting the population of a country and tallying how many are citizens or not?

The main argument is that immigrants documented and undocumented will avoid the census due to mistrust causing under reporting in areas with large immigrant populations and a loss of federal services to those area despite their need.

Or a redirection of federal dollars to areas with citizens that need them. But hey... tomato, tomato. The underlying concern is that it might increase representation from traditionally republican voter bases and areas at the expense of the blue team as technically in our representative democracy model the elected officials are suppose to represent the voters and not just individuals who are presently in the country.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:Current oval office occupant notwithstanding, what is inherently wrong about counting the population of a country and tallying how many are citizens or not?

The main argument is that immigrants documented and undocumented will avoid the census due to mistrust causing under reporting in areas with large immigrant populations and a loss of federal services to those area despite their need.

Furthermore, I don't think we can add a "[c]urrent oval office occupant notwithstanding" disclaimer to this. This might be a different story if this question was being added by an administration that doesn't have such a strict reputation when it comes to immigration.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:Current oval office occupant notwithstanding, what is inherently wrong about counting the population of a country and tallying how many are citizens or not?

The main argument is that immigrants documented and undocumented will avoid the census due to mistrust causing under reporting in areas with large immigrant populations and a loss of federal services to those area despite their need.

Or a redirection of federal dollars to areas with citizens that need them. But hey... tomato, tomato. The underlying concern is that it might increase representation from traditionally republican voter bases and areas at the expense of the blue team as technically in our representative democracy model the elected officials are suppose to represent the voters and not just individuals who are presently in the country.

Not according to the Constitution. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Also, I'm not sure if your complaint is that communities would get funding/representation based on undocumented immigrants only or also non-citizen residents, because presumably both would be under reported due to individuals being uncomfortable cooperating with a census worker asking about their citizenship status.

There's also of course the inanity of presuming that undocumented peoples just don't use government funded programs if they're not counted in the census, or that not counting them will allow you to direct the (reduced) funding solely to the citizens of that locality.

i believe i am documented thank you

Peeps wrote:i believe i am documented thank you

Oh, you've been documented, all right.

Bi_3 wrote:Or a redirection of federal dollars to areas with citizens that need them.

What a magnificent way to decimate healthcare access for every sagging rural community that relies on federal funding determined by their population to prop up their feeble infrastructure. Added bonus: you’ll put the local nurses, who are often based out of the retirement communities and tend to be exceptionally locally popular and among the most educated people in town, out of a job.