Vitter Objects To Including Undocumented Aliens In Census: Prefers 3/5 Rule?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:46:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

David Vitter does not like that the Census counts all the "Persons" in the United States:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is sponsoring an amendment to an appropriations bill that would require illegal immigrants list their status on next year's Census, said late Wednesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants them counted amongst the general population instead. The senator claimed that Reid wants illegals to be counted in the 2010 Census so that left-leaning states with high illegal immigrant populations could increase the size of their congressional delegations.

Senator Vitter does not like them brown people being counted. Unfortunately for him, the Constitution provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State [. . .]"

So much for originalism (though Vitter seem unable to read English as he has said "“I don’t believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they laid out our current system of representation[.]” BTW, what do the Texans have to say about this?

Speaking for me only

< Blue Dog Suggests Medicare For All? Where Do We Sign? | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Vitter Objects To Including Undocumented Aliens In Census: Prefers 3/5 Rule? | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Since it's obviously a non-starter, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:53:07 PM EST

I'd just like to focus on how blatantly racist an amendment this is. Thank you David Vitter for providing further evidence that the Republican party is the southern hate party.

: Define racism (none / 0) (#34)
by Wile ECoyote on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:46:22 PM EST

please.

People in glass brothels (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:55:22 PM EST

shouldn't throw stones, Senator Vitter.

Does he propose (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Zorba on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 02:58:28 PM EST

that diaper-wearing-during-sex-with-hookers people also not be counted in the census?

I find it interesting (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:03:43 PM EST

that after all the Michele Bachmann hysteria about how people shouldn't trust the census collectors because they may have all sorts of ulterior purposes, Republicans want to deputize the census collectors as immigration cops. Yeah, that will make everyone trust the census more.

Look, even if you're a complete hardliner on immigration, how exactly do you see this playing out? People are going to go door to door and say "Excuse me ma'am, I'm from the federal government, I'm just wondering if you're in the country legally"? Do they really envision lots of people checking off the "illegal alien" box? If immigration enforcement is truly that easy, it makes you wonder.

At this point in time, wouldn't it be better (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:08:50 PM EST

for Vitter to lie low and hope we all forget his name?

Send him door to door (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:13:48 PM EST

Wasn't there a census taker killed recently in Kentucky? In spite of that, he want them to go after illegal aliens. I don't think the job salary level includes combat pay.

: From one field report (none / 0) (#27)
by Fabian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:21:53 PM EST

in WV, people were generally friendly and helpful. When they say something like "Oh, there's nothing up that end of the road.", they really are trying to help you.
Although my favorite part was where one woman knew someone at the FBI and called them to see if there really was a census going on and was she ever mad to find out that there was!

Sigh (2.00 / 0) (#14)
by jarober on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:53:52 PM EST

Must you make everything about race and assume racism? It's possible to be against open borders and counting the illegals without being racist.

Heck, since illegals are the most likely to be in crappy work situations, it's arguable that the open borders types are acting in an objectively racist fashion, while having no intentions of the sort.

That shape you just twisted yourself in (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:03:16 PM EST

resembles a pretzel.


And resembles cat food... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anne on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:05:23 PM EST

[snort]


: O/T, but that was the best, nastiest, Top Chef (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:08:36 PM EST

one-liner since "vegan bar midnight special."

The Conditional quote seems a little selective... (none / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:10:34 PM EST

Here's the entire thing...

2. 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.
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

iow, representation shall be apportioned to the legal voters of the state.

Illegal immigrants are, of course, not legal voters, therefore they should not be counted.

Seems logical to me.

Heh (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:14:22 PM EST

The provision you cite is about SOUTHERN discrimination against black voters.

Or are you seriously arguing that legal residents who can not vote are not counted in the Census?

Or persons under the age of 18?

Or prior to women's suffrage, only men counted?

I chalk this comment up to your ignorance (as in lack of knowledge), not bad faith.


Don't change the subject. (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:25:05 PM EST

Are you arguing that my reading of the quote that YOU linked to in support your position is incorrect?

If so, how so?


You're a laugh riot. (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:27:50 PM EST

For the very reasons I stated to you (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:30:10 PM EST

the provision, from a Civil War Amendment, was ton insure that states did not deprive LEGAL VOTERS the right to vote and if they did, they would be deprived of representation.

Undocumented aliens are not legally allowed to vote, so there is no deprivation of their right to vote, therefore the provision you cite does not apply.

Consider my examples above - LEGAL aliens, women prior to suffrage, persons under the age of 18. They were and are all counted in the Census.

Let's take the more extreme example, prior to the 14th Amendment - slaves. THEY were counted (as 3/5 of a person.) The only persons EXPRESSLY excluded from the count were Indians not subject to federal tax.

EVERYONE ELSE is counted. EVERYONE.

Now there has been a debate about what "counting" means. And you have to ask yourself this - the Republicans, they have some pretty smart lawyers, do you think they would not have made this "Constitutional" argument if it were not insane?


Fair enough.. (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:03:27 PM EST

This, from wiki, seems to explain it best:

However, the provision calling for proportional decreases in representation in the House of Representatives for states that denied men 21 and older the right to vote was never enforced

iow, the 14th does say essentially what I thought it said, it's just that proportional representation based on the criteria in Section 2 has never been enforced.

Thus the 'smart lawyers' never made the "Constitutional" argument because it would then logically remove women, children, etc., from being counted for representational purposes.

Makes sense to me, I never really thought about it before.


IANAL but enforcement or not is irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by cymro on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:55:10 PM EST

... because it does NOT say essentially what you thought it said.

Reading the text, it specifically says that the reduction in representation applies to situations in which the right to vote "is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ..."

So, as BTD noted above, that clause has nothing to say about who should be counted in the first place, and it does not modify the prior rule that EVERYONE in the state should be counted.

So, the amendment says

(a) count everyone to determine how many representative a state gets
(b) if a state prevents legal voters from voting, reduce its allocation in proportion to the proportion of legal voters that were denied the vote.

How can you read this any differently?


: Yep, I missed the (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:17:24 PM EST

"and citizens of the United States" part, as I discussed down-thread.
I get it now.

The census (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:13:22 PM EST

Is not just used for representation. It's used to for things like determining money for social services and muniicpal planning.


But it is used for representation (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:17:46 PM EST

Indeed, the whole definition of "counting" (Republicans argue that using sampling techniques is not "counting") goes to the very issue here.

No Republican can argue that the Constitution permits NOT counting undocumented aliens because the text of the Constitution is clear.

Let me put it this way - "persons" is pretty clear. And it includes undocumented aliens.

There is certainly more fleixibility in how you do the "counting" than in the word "persons."

Unless undocumented aliens are not "persons," a position that Republicans are certainly comfortable adopting. Reasonable and decent people would try to avoid such an argument.


: Oh, absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by jbindc on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:18:54 PM EST

The language is confusing (none / 0) (#16)
by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:57:25 PM EST

but the language "any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States" refers to individuals who are BOTH (i) male 21-year old inhabitants of the state, and (ii) citizens of the United States. Of course both the gender and age requirements have been modified by subsequent amendments.

This is probably made clearer by an earlier version of paragraph 2, as quoted in the Supreme Court case of Richardson v. Ramirez, as follows:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens, not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.

In other words, States were only forbidden (under penalty of losing representation) from denying the franchise to their CITIZENS. There was certainly no intent to penalize a state for denying the right to vote to non-citizens!


: Ah, yes, I see now. From the original: (none / 0) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:13:06 PM EST

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Since illegal aliens are not citizens, Section 2 does not pertain to them.
The language is confusing. Thanks.

counting illegals (none / 0) (#25)
by Molly Pitcher on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:49:32 PM EST

The words quoted say, "excluding Indians not taxed." Sounds a bit like this: "If you don't pay taxes (or no one pays them for you), you are not counted." I'd assume illegals do not pay income tax; as to sales tax, I tend to think that was not what was being discussed.


Children don't pay tax either (none / 0) (#28)
by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:44:34 PM EST

so would that mean they don't count?

For purposes of the census the count should include everyone. As someone pointed out above it's not just used for voting purposes but alloting resources.


Perhaps (none / 0) (#29)
by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:06:31 PM EST

when they wrote "Indians" they actually meant "Indians and non-Indians," but I wouldn't try that argument in court personally. In addition, there was no such thing as a peacetime income tax in the US until 1894, and 90% of Americans didn't pay it anyway. Even today, more than 40% of Americans don't pay income tax, and it would certainly be a revelation to find out that they're all disqualified from voting. I could go on, but I think I won't.


: Isn't it also (none / 0) (#30)
by jbindc on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:54:08 PM EST

That "Indians" refers to those living on a reservation - in other words, on sovereign soil? Are they counted for purposes of representation?

Income Tax (none / 0) (#33)
by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:19:14 PM EST

I would venture to say that a lot of illegal aliens do pay income tax. They use forged documents to get the job in many cases. But I bet very few file for refunds for fear of being caught.


What is wrong with these people? (none / 0) (#15)
by Anne on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 03:56:06 PM EST

It makes my head hurt thinking that there are people who endorse this kind of Stone Age attitude, and are sitting in the halls of Congress dreaming up new ways to make people's lives miserable.

Well (none / 0) (#23)
by Watermark on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:15:21 PM EST

I think the whole thing about apportioning seats to people who can't vote is kind of troubling. The people who were hurt by the 3/5 rule weren't the slaves; they already couldn't get the vote. The southern landowners WANTED them counted as whole persons, so that THEY could essentially cast the slaves votes for them.

If a 35% conservative white minority lived in a district with a 55% Hispanic majority, and half of them were illegal, it would essentially be giving the illegal immigrants votes to the white conservatives.

However, the constitution does requires it, and it is going to be that way regardless of Vitter's amendment.

: As a sidenote (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Watermark on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:21:44 PM EST

In New York, the upper state gets a whole extra senate seat because of all the prisoners from NYC who can't vote that are shipped up there.
Giving extra representation to voters based on the fact that they've imported more people who can't vote does have a certain unfairness about it.

Interesting re Texas, but (none / 0) (#26)
by Ben Masel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:20:44 PM EST

Seat of my pants, Vitter's plan would help Dems by a seat or 3 Federally, but would provide much greater advantage to Republicans in State legislatures, since uncertified immigrants are much more clustered within each State than from State to State.

is it a requirement, (none / 0) (#35)
by cpinva on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:37:21 PM EST

that you be functionally illiterate, to be a republican these days?

i ask because it seems (based purely on anecdotal evidence) they have a monopoly on stupid and ignorant.

No monopoly (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 06:29:49 AM EST

The other day, Obama schlepped to New Orleans.
Giving a speech, he mentioned all the good things he was going to do for the people who have been on hold for four years.

Then he mentioned Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.
This idiot was forced to accept stimulus money after refusing to do so. New Orleans is still a shambles.

The crowd booed his name.
But Obama told them that Bobby was doing a "good job".
The highest undeserved accolade since "Heck-of-a-job-Brownie".

It's a wonder Obama didn't get laughed off the stage.


: Or (none / 0) (#38)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:12:40 AM EST

chocolate city

"Our" founding fathers... (none / 0) (#36)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 06:19:37 AM EST

VItter -quoted above - refers to "our founding fathers".

This phrase, "our founding fathers" sounds really dated to me.

Firstly, who is the "us" in "our"?

Where do the native Americans fit in to this?
They ain't their fathers, that's for sure.

And all the "second class citizens". Are they the sons and daughters of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or whomever the fathers are supposed to be.

What about people brought here in chains?

And the country itself...
If Patrick Henry were around today, he'd be in jail.
Either that, or he'd have his phone tapped and his email intercepted. Jefferson had a few treasonous things to say also.
And that Franklin..."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". What a pinko commie soft on terror bleeding heart. Rendition with him. Next case.

So - what country are we talking about and who are the fathers?
Right now, the fathers seem to be Bush and Cheney. And their descendants are running amok.

American's must decide? (none / 0) (#39)
by Brittanicus on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:41:34 PM EST

This is the amount of incredulous influence the--OPEN BORDER--lobbyists (business power brokers and ethnic zealots)) have on certain Democratic devious rabble? Once again the senate top echelon have huddled secretly (BEHIND CLOSED DOORS), recklessly placing E-Verify worker identification system in jeopardy. The obnoxious
R-O-P-E Senate group as its being called on the Internet and nationwide, who are marked as Reid, Obama, Pelosi Emmanuel have indifferently pushed American Workers in the background, allowing the millions of illegal aliens to take their jobs. They have driven into the ground amendments from appearing in the final Homeland Security "conference committee" bill. They eradicated--ANY CHANCE--of a Senate's permanent authorization of the E-Verify program.
They have religiously under-funded, undermined the Senate's mandate to beef up and complete the final 300 mile Mexican border fence. Then again it was never the original border wall as designed by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Illegal Aliens would have first had to scale the--FIRST--fence, run across the two lane highway for the Border Patrol vehicles, then scale an identical--SECOND FENCE. Under funded and weakened just like E-Verify, the police 287(g) arrest and detainment and ceasing the massive ICE raids. Finally the ROPE group strangled the Senate (already) passed ability of countrywide businesses to run their previous hires employees through E-Verify. So you can guess this is a harbinger to drop on the AMERICAN WORKER YET ANOTHER ULTIMATELY EXPENSIVE BLANKET AMNESTY. THOSE TAXPAYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PICK UP A TRILLION DOLLAR TAB. Be advised that Reid D-NV , Pelosi D-CA have one of the largest population of illegal immigrants in the country, who they are subservient too. Remember to expend your frustration and anger at 202-224-3121on your lawmakers. They are juggling with millions of American Workers job lifeline, by pandering to people who shouldn't even be here?

MY SUGGESTION IS DON"T BUY ANY SERVICES FROM BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T DISPLAY THE E-VERIFY PLACARD. Remember the real conniving happens in rooms hidden from the public awareness in conference committees. In addition, Remember Harry Reid as an incumbent Senator who carries the blemish of being anti-American Worker, Anti-Sovereignty must not be re-elected. Speaker Pelosi must go? So must Emmanuel? They have proved they cannot be trusted As NUMBERSUSA president says," With no chance now of E-Verify dying in any minute, because they couldn't annul the 3 year extension? The pro-amnesty forces no longer can try to use it as a bargaining chip. States, counties, cities and businesses can now be quite confident that they can set policy based on the E-Verify program being around." IT'S NOT PERMANENT YET THANKS TO ROPE. This group has given preference to illegal workers instead of the 15 million authorized AMERICAN WORKERS. COMPREHEND MORE OF THE CORRUPTION THAT CANNOT BE DENIED BY POLITICIANS AT JUDICIAL WATCH. NUMBERSUSA will explain in detail the consequences, that includes the 2010 Census, Health Care, hidden welfare programs, Anchor babies, criminals amongst the illegal immigration occupiers. CAPSWEB for OVERPOPULATION information.