2010 Census

[Guest]

Have you heard the discussions regarding the 2010 census involving whether to count illegal aliens or not?

The issue being discussed is to consider including them in the census.
Why? Two schools of thought. One is to get a better handle on how many and where. As if they would know any more than they know now. Secondly to count them and include them in the numbers for re-apportioning the congressional seats.

Of course the only states that would consider asking for this are those with a high population of illegals like California, Texas, Nevada and others.

The problem is the current census "rules" pertain to US citizens only.

Sounds simple....eh?
But as politically the case they do not want to bring it before the house for a vote because too many do not want to be seen as voting against it. And the other category that want it but do not want to be seen as voting for it.

Proof positive that getting elected is the highest of priorities for them to get re-elected(many would say is there any other priority for them?...No, of course not)

An estimate was done for the state of California....if included California would pick up as many as 8 more congressional seats. Does anyone wonder what they would favor?

It is very simple. They are not US citizens therefore end of discussion....they can be counted but not allowed to be in the apportionment aspect of the census.

Even the fact that it is being considered is the scary part on the part of our representatives who would further erode our core values for political gain.

2010 & 2012 vote the bums out.

btk

Is there something being glossed over regarding the term "ILLEGAL"?

Another issue to write to your representatives and tel them not just no but HELL NO!!!!!!!!!

What do you think? Should they be counted? SHould they be included in the re-apportionment?

[Guest]

Of course non-citizens should be counted. The census is historically inaccurate, creating funding and representative advantages or disadvantages in some places. So, the more accurate we are in 2010, the better.

To me, the question of whether non-citizens should be counted for reapportionment is extremely complex. The reality is that non-citizens are here, and have been since they came on the Mayflower. We just haven't been interested or able to develop immigration laws which truly differentiate between those who deserve to share in the benefits of the Land of the Free and those who don't. So until we do, I believe we must accept the reality that every human being who is here deserves to be treated like human being.

[Guest]

Of course non-citizens should be counted. The census is historically inaccurate, creating funding and representative advantages or disadvantages in some places. So, the more accurate we are in 2010, the better.

To me, the question of whether non-citizens should be counted for reapportionment is extremely complex. The reality is that non-citizens are here, and have been since they came on the Mayflower. We just haven't been interested or able to develop immigration laws which truly differentiate between those who deserve to share in the benefits of the Land of the Free and those who don't. So until we do, I believe we must accept the reality that every human being who is here deserves to be treated like human being.

It is very hard to accept allowing the population of NON CITIZENS be allowed to redraw the boundaries for electoral purposes since they cannot vote.

Explain how not using them for electoral purpose since they cannot vote is not having them "treated like human being"

[Guest]

It is very hard to accept allowing the population of NON CITIZENS be allowed to redraw the boundaries for electoral purposes since they cannot vote.

Explain how not using them for electoral purpose since they cannot vote is not having them "treated like human being"

I think that we should count them in the census, and once we know who and where they are THROW THEM OUT!

WHAT PART OF THE WORD ILLEGAL DO LIBERALS NOT UNDERSTAND?:swear:

[Guest]

Hi I am here from the government and I want to ask you a few questions??:a20:

Oh so you are here illegally....how many are with you?....:a20:

Each are entitled to their opinion on the subject of the thread. I guess maybe for another thread we could discuss when did we become a society of laws and rules and regulations that have been no problem for years. How did we transition from majority rules and simple things like if it is illegal you didn't do it. And if you did you were punished.
What will this country be like in another 50 years if this permissive pacifism continues?

What about all the immigrants who have spent years becoming a US citizen by following the rules?

Why wouldn't Mexico become the new port of entry for all those who do not want to go through the legal process?

How about a non US citizen who beats one of your loved ones...being here illegally....and released because it may be illegal to beat your loved one....but those rules are only for those here legally and the rest of us born here!!!!

The whole concept of allowing the illegal to continue...to be accepted....to be given benefits many US citizens would love to have....and be treated with kid gloves....etc....etc....TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY STUPID....what else could come from our linguine spined legislators in Washington and the permissive pacifists who re-elect them. :a20::a20:

btk