Crist supports counting illegal immigrants in 2010 Census

posted at 2:20 pm on February 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sometimes one has to wonder whether Charlie Crist really wants to win his primary battle against Marco Rubio for the Republican nomination to contest Florida’s open Senate seat.  When Rubio endorsed the conservative and mainstream national GOP position that the US Census should count only legal residents and citizens, Crist decided to differentiate himself by supporting the count of illegal immigrants — as a means to get more pork from Washington:

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio has come out against including illegal immigrants in the national census — even though doing so could significantly reduce Florida’s political power and share of federal funding. …

But, later, a spokesman for Rubio’s Senate campaign said that Rubio did “not support a congressional reapportionment process that counts illegal immigrant populations when allocating seats.” Alex Burgos said Rubio’s position “stems from a concern about rightful representation in Congress and ensuring that every voter has an equal voice.” …

Crist went to North Miami on Tuesday to urge everyone to participate in the census.

“The people of Florida represent a rich legacy of diverse cultures, backgrounds and experiences, and want to be represented accordingly,” Crist said. “Florida families should participate in the 2010 census to ensure our state receives the funding necessary to meet the needs of our citizens.”

The primary purpose of the Census is reapportionment.  Sen. David Vitter is correct in saying that states with higher levels of illegal immigrants put other states at a disadvantage when it comes to representation in Congress.  Florida houses an estimated 980,000 of the 11.5 million illegals in the US today, which represents about one and a half seats in the House of Representatives.  When Vitter tried offering that restriction in a bill, Crist’s appointee to the Senate seat supported the cloture vote that blocked Vitters’ amendment.

But there is also $400 billion in federal programs available to states, allocated in large part on the basis of population.  Crist wants a bigger piece of that pie, and Rubio also acknowledged that those kinds of considerations are not unimportant.  That should demonstrate how federal programs distort political processes, though, and not give an excuse to pork feeders at the trough.  The Constitutional requirement for a Census every ten years is to make sure that Americans have fair representation in the House, not to determine which little piggy gets the most slop.

The Census should always be restricted to counting those legally residing in the US, and the failure of people in government to understand that — people like Charlie Crist — just shows the corrosive nature of pork and of the growing Leviathan in Washington.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

TOAST.

stenwin77 on February 3, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Lourdes: Yes, that’s the definition of “citizen.” But we’re talking about section 2, which says that apportionment shall be made by counting the number of “persons” in each State. If the Framers had meant to limit the count to citizens, it seems logical that they would have done so, right?

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Are felons counted in the Census? Just curious.

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Felons don’t lose citizenship, if they are citizens to begin with when they engage feloniously, are adjudicated and serve a sentence for such.

Being a felon doesn’t erase or remove citizenship if it exists prior to.

In some cases, I think Congress deports felons who are naturalized citizens, though, if they’re rotten enough as felons.

Illegal ALIENS who are felons, well, I doubt they make that know to too many people when asked, especially if they’re taking a census or asking too many questions.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I posted from both of the first two paragraphs of the Fourteenth Amendment to illustrate where the confusion comes from. Section 1 says which persons are citizens; Section 2 says that persons (who may or may not be citizens) are to be counted.

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Don’t rule out a switch of parties for Crist. That way the donk gets the seat and he is much more aligned to the left.

jukin on February 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Christian Conservative on February 3, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Which is why the form is mostly unrelated to a census. It only requires one question to determine how many people reside at a given address. The idea you can be fined for refusing to answer non census based questions is as big a monstrosity as the mandates they are trying to pass in Zerocare.

chemman on February 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM

FL is also getting hammered by medical expenses for airlifted Haitians. I really feel for folks who are trying to keep hospitals solvent in FL right now, to be honest.

funky chicken on February 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM

The solution is really simple.

The immigration policies adhered to by the State Dept. should also have funding available(they can reduce the block grants to all the other states) to provide for care for these refugees. Eventually the other states would get tired of funding illegals and others and force their representatives to take care of the ‘open borders problem’.

belad on February 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM

So, Ed, I think we have a consensus building that what Crist is asking to do is simply to follow the plain language of Const. Am. 14, § 2.

I’m not a huge Crist fan (I’ll probably vote for Rubio), but I think this is more about atmospherics than substance.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM

The plain reading of the Constitution is that the apportionment of Representatives is based on the number of persons in a state, regardless of their citizenship. I don’t think that is the best outcome, but if we want to change it, we need to pass a Constitutional amendment.

dirc on February 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM

A total misnomer, and you know it. The Constitution is about Citizens, not something that allows anyone from anywhere to enjoy the rights of Americans, of the Constitution that NO ONE at the time believed in or even wants to see enacted world-wide to this day.

Amendment has been passed, and it took the 13th to make former slaves CITIZENS. Those former slaves NEVER had a vote. Since slaves weren’t Citizens, they had no vote. By extension, NO non-Citizens bears a right to vote.

But those former slaves were granted Citizenship, that they DO have right to vote.

You are so dead wrong about history.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Lourdes: Yes, that’s the definition of “citizen.” But we’re talking about section 2, which says that apportionment shall be made by counting the number of “persons” in each State. If the Framers had meant to limit the count to citizens, it seems logical that they would have done so, right?

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I read it differently.

I realize you’re referring to “persons” in the sense of human beings being physically present in the U.S.A. in relationship to the Census, without regard for their citizenship.

BUT the first part (Section 1.) defines “persons” as being due representation per the conditions I emphasised (if they’re “subject to the jurisdiction [of the U.S.A.]”).

They’re “persons” in the humanity sense, sociologically religiously, too, but not in the sense of who is due representation by our government.

Those persons physically present in the U.S. without benefit of birth here or naturalization and who are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. are not due representation, in other words.

We could count porpoise and claim they’re due representation since New Agers (and the Obama Admin.) says they’re persons or the equivalent of same.

Crazy Cass Sunstein maintains such a nutty idea and he’s one of those Harvard lawyers who claims to be one of Obama’s experts on the Constitution.

Do you see where this leads, this sliding scale use of the Clinton terminology (“it depends on what ‘is’ is”).

The Left would have us believe that our Constitution is meaningless because they never stop redefining terms to suit their political needs to defraud the taxpayers.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Look at it this way: counting illegal immigrants in the decennial Census is the best practical way we have of telling how many of them are in the United States.

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM

dirc on February 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM

By what you posted, some racist from South Africa has ‘right’ to vote in an American election.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Lourdes and Liam: I’m pretty much a Randall Barnett-style, libertarian, strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. I’m also a lawyer and know that the best way to interpret a document is to look at its plain meaning. Section 1 defines who is a citizen. Section 2 defines the grounds for apportionment. The Framers of the 14th Amendment are presumed to have known the implications of using the word “persons” in Section 2 as opposed to “citizens,” which they had just gone to the trouble of defining in Section 1.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

There are services based on population estimates that doesn’t involve income transfers to illegals, but NOT counting them would negatively affect these services. Among them: road construction, garbage pickup, water distribution, public parks etc. Since you can’t exclude illegals from getting this service (we’re talking about the real world here, not the fantasy one where illegals don’t exist), purposefully undercounting them would hit YOUR use of these services as well.

Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 2:36 PM

But if illegal aliens DON’T count in the Census, and Federal money to the states is based on LEGAL citizens only, this would give Governors with high illegal alien populations an incentive to have them deported, freeing up jobs for American citizens, who could use them in Florida.

Crist is trying to have it both ways. He puts on his Governor’s hat and wants more money from the Feds, then his (possible) Senator’s hat to want more Congressional districts for Florida.

But as a Republican, Crist should remember that illegal aliens can’t vote (legally), and some of them vote illegally for Democrats. Why, as a Republican, is Crist working for more House Democrats from Florida?

Steve Z on February 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM

The plain reading of the Constitution is that the apportionment of Representatives is based on the number of persons in a state, regardless of their citizenship. I don’t think that is the best outcome, but if we want to change it, we need to pass a Constitutional amendment.

dirc on February 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM

A total misnomer, and you know it. The Constitution is about Citizens, not something that allows anyone from anywhere to enjoy the rights of Americans, of the Constitution that NO ONE at the time believed in or even wants to see enacted world-wide to this day.

Amendment has been passed, and it took the 13th to make former slaves CITIZENS. Those former slaves NEVER had a vote. Since slaves weren’t Citizens, they had no vote. By extension, NO non-Citizens bears a right to vote.

But those former slaves were granted Citizenship, that they DO have right to vote.

You are so dead wrong about history.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Liam is right.

The 14th Amendment was even readdressed by the very guy who wrote it who tried to reassert what he said he wrote in that Amendment and that is that citizenship and representation (and voting, etc., privileges of citizenship) ONLY apply to persons who are (born here or naturalized) AND WHO are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

And that what that MEANS is as how I’ve reiterated it here earlier, that someone’s subject to the U.S.A. NOT simply “present” physically within the U.S.A.’s boundaries.

Even the author of that said on the record that that’s what he wrote and meant by writing such, but his intent and meaning and later statements about that has been cast aside by the Left in their needs to diminish the very meaning (and worth, thereby) of citizenship.

The pro-amnesty people (Left and Right) continue to try to force a misapplication of the Constitution and in my view, are entirely despicable for doing so.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Look at it this way: counting illegal immigrants in the decennial Census is the best practical way we have of telling how many of them are in the United States.

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM

I was thinking along the same lines.

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Oh, good Lord. There’s a lot of sloppy reasoning going on, here.

Later,

SWLiP

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM

. Why, as a Republican, is Crist working for more House Democrats from Florida?

Steve Z on February 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM

We all, I think by now, know the answer to that. Crist, McCain even, many Libertarians who claim to be Republican, are responsible for this ongoing disasterous imposition upon the taxpayers.

I hate to include Jeb Bush in that but fact is, he is included in that list.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM

macncheez on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Lourdes

Thanks for the info

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM

The Framers of the 14th Amendment are presumed to have known the implications of using the word “persons” in Section 2 as opposed to “citizens,” which they had just gone to the trouble of defining in Section 1.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

The Constitution is specifically written for “us and our posterity”, which are citizens. We also count those we have invited in. But, no others.

Why would you even trust anything an illegal said, anyway? Based on what? If an illegal said that 35 people were living in one room, who is to say that that is accurate? But you think that government power and representation should take the word of an illegal as fact. That’s sort of nutty, isn’t it? Aside from the problem with extending “us and our posterity” to “all humans ever birthed who have managed, by hook or by crook, and many times after we have specifically told them that they were NOT welcome, to set foot on American soil”.

neurosculptor on February 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Lourdes and Liam: I’m pretty much a Randall Barnett-style, libertarian, strict constructionist when it comes to the

Constitution. I’m also a lawyer and know that the best way to interpret a document is to look at its plain meaning. Section 1 defines who is a citizen. Section 2 defines the grounds for apportionment. The Framers of the 14th Amendment are presumed to have known the implications of using the word “persons” in Section 2 as opposed to “citizens,” which they had just gone to the trouble of defining in Section 1.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

And I bet you earn your living arguing what you think documents mean as opposed to what other people say they mean.

So you’ve addressed your own biases there and identified your own “sloppy reasoning”.

It means what I’ve described and EVEN THE GUY WHO WROTE THAT SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT stated as much.

You WANT it to mean something else, thus, you’re pushing your own supremacy “as a lawyer” in your abilities to interpret rather than accept the content as it is.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Aren’t the vast number of Census forms sent to addresses without reference to names? It’s been ten years, I don’t remember.

Cindy Munford on February 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM

I think we have a consensus building that what Crist is asking to do is simply to follow the plain language of Const. Am. 14, § 2.

I’m not a huge Crist fan (I’ll probably vote for Rubio), but I think this is more about atmospherics than substance.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM

You’ve not read much about the 14th Amendment, obviously, by your persistence and insistence in promoting an opinionated “interpretation” of it that involves excluding obvious portions of it.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:22 PM

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

So, we can and should count illegals as apportionment for representation, the same way slaves were partially counted so that Congress can be tilted toward a desired result, like was wanted 150 years ago to keep black people slaves?

Is that what you’re saying?

How about this: Americans have right, cause, and reason to keep their country. America is NOT world property.

Try your consideration, which isn’t reason, anywhere else in the world and see where you get. When you can say China will buy into your beliefs, I’ll back off.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Aren’t the vast number of Census forms sent to addresses without reference to names? It’s been ten years, I don’t remember.

Cindy Munford on February 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Yes AND you can, legally, not complete most of the form. Like omitting name and other key elements and just identifying ethnicity and number in household.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Of course the liberals want them counted, every one of them.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Which only has value if we are going to take some concrete actions to solve the illegal problem.

chemman on February 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM

They ought to dis-incentivize harboring illegals, by subtracting person for person every illegal alien from the state’s census tally for purposes of gerrymandering and government porking.

Greek Fire on February 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Aren’t illegal aliens already felons? That is, they knowingly broke one of the laws when they came to United States. How can they be citizens at any point of time?

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM

I posted from both of the first two paragraphs of the Fourteenth Amendment to illustrate where the confusion comes from. Section 1 says which persons are citizens; Section 2 says that persons (who may or may not be citizens) are to be counted.

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Section 1 specifically EXCLUDES anyone born in the U.S.A. who is NOT “subject to the jurisdication thereof” which means, in the parlance of our times, “anchor babies.”

So they may be deemed “persons” but they are not deemed eligible (to advance to Section 2 conditions) if excluded by Section 1.

Read it as it’s written. Start at the top, go through Section 1 then onto Section 2.

If you don’t “pass” Section 1, you don’t get to Section 2.

The “subject to the jurisdiction” part is essential to the entire statement, Sections 1 and 2.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM

The pro-amnesty people (Left and Right) continue to try to force a misapplication of the Constitution and in my view, are entirely despicable for doing so.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Ever see the movie Invasion USA? There’s a line by the lead Soviet terrorist who said, “Look at them…They don’t even know the nature of their own freedom.”

I never forget that after 30 years.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Crist must have a job waiting on him in the BHO administration…

d1carter on February 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM

What’s that smell?

Is that a FLAMEOUT?

noblejones on February 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM

The Census should always be restricted to counting those legally residing in the US, and the failure of people in government to understand believe that — people like Charlie Crist — just shows the corrosive nature of pork and of the growing Leviathan in Washington.

Such people are greater enemies to an American democratic constitutional republic than is Al Qaeda.

MB4 on February 3, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Look at it this way: counting illegal immigrants in the decennial Census is the best practical way we have of telling how many of them are in the United States.

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM

The 2010 census form doesn’t have any question about citizenship at all. A simple question
” Are you a US citizen or legally allowed to work in US” is not there, and its not by accident.

macncheez on February 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

Though it has been “updated” by the 14th amendment.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Aren’t illegal aliens already felons? That is, they knowingly broke one of the laws when they came to United States. How can they be citizens at any point of time?

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Last I heard, illegal immigration is not a felony but some lesser crime (misdemeanor) UNLESS there are other crimes compounding it like smuggling, violence of any kind like assault, burglary, car theft, evading LE, sexual assault, etc.

But if you’re “just” shuffled over the border in a car seat or overstay your tourist/visitor/student visa, you’re an illegal alien at that point but without additional crimes, you’re not a felon UNLESS CHARGED AND CONVICTED.

Being “a felon” means you’ve been deemed by some court to be so. It has to be proven to exist, in other words.

Not making apologies, no way, just saying…but with MOST illegal aliens, THEY DO compound their immigration crime by ongoing additional crimes such as ID theft and such. So if ever arrested and examined closely with evidence found as to such, they tend to escape greater charges unless they’re actually stopped in the process of a violent crime, smuggling, stealing, etc.

The initial immigration ‘crime’ is not a felony, not unless they’ve violated deportation orders and compounded the immigration thing…

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM

The pro-amnesty people (Left and Right) continue to try to force a misapplication of the Constitution and in my view, are entirely despicable for doing so.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Amen, Lourdes. Rubio gets it. Crist doesn’t. But, Crist hasn’t really got it for some time. That’s why young Mr. Rubio will clean his clock.

Crusader Rabbit on February 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Crist is a disaster that needs to be run out of office and never allowed to return to any political position as a conservative or Republican.

rplat on February 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

But illegal immigration is a crime, nonetheless, though it may not necessarily be “a felony” given conditions (that are various per the individual).

Once in the nation illegally, one is an illegal alien and that’s the term the Constitution uses for such.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Liberty, fairness, and honesty do NOT require that Americans excuse illegality. But the Left sees that as all one package.

If you don’t excuse illegality, you’re a bigot.

The Left is bad, and those on the Left need to grasp that.

Let’s be honest: If a white liberal goes for a job he’s good at, and he’s passed over for a ‘selected minority’ because of Affirmative Action, I want that white lib to tell me how that’s ‘fair’ and ‘honest’.

Tell me, lib–that you have no feelings about that.

I’ve been a victim of your Affirmative Action. Tell me, please, how you’d find being cornholed makes you feel so ‘enlightened’.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:34 PM

of the Constitution that NO ONE at the time believed in or even wants to see enacted world-wide to this day

Why would anyone want to take a constitution written for and suited to a particular country and enact it world-wide? What sort of deranged globalism is that?

aengus on February 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM

But, Crist hasn’t really got it for some time. That’s why young Mr. Rubio will clean his clock.

Crusader Rabbit on February 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Yeah, it’s remarkable how astute and clear-thinking/speaking Rubio is about what he reasons and why. He puts so many others to shame in those regards.

I’m eager to see him in the Senate. Rubio’s truly a great guy, from what I’ve seen of him so far.

I’m always afraid some rotten thing is going to surface, though, later, with any politician I support, so for today, I think Rubio’s great. ;)

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Fork meet Charlie “Tan in a can”.

Charlie meet Fork.

Question to Fork? “Is he done?”

Fork replies……….”Yep”

Then stick ’em.

PappyD61 on February 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM

“The people of Florida represent a rich legacy of diverse cultures, backgrounds and experiences, and want to be represented accordingly,” Crist said. “Florida families should participate in the 2010 census to ensure our state receives the funding necessary to meet the needs of our citizens.”

The people of Florida also represent about one million illegal aliens who should have no citizen rights or privileges. If Charlie wants to fund illegal aliens, then it should come out of the state’s budget. Then, we’d see more enforcement. After this, Rubio will be leading Crist by 20 points.

orlandocajun on February 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I live in Florida and have been an Independent for as long as I have been able to vote. Two weeks ago my husband and I both changed our party affiliations to Republican so we can vote for Rubio in FL’s closed primary.

I’m starting to think that Crist should just come out and give his endorsement to Rubio.

ExcessivelyDiverted on February 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The 2010 census form doesn’t have any question about citizenship at all. A simple question
” Are you a US citizen or legally allowed to work in US” is not there, and its not by accident.

macncheez on February 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Outrageous! The Left is so fouled. They’re just so awful.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM

After this, Rubio will be leading Crist by 20 200 points.

orlandocajun on February 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM

ExcessivelyDiverted on February 3, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Lourdes, your great comments gave me the inspiration to write my congressmen, both state and national, to express all the wonderful points you made. If you haven’t yourself, I suggest you do, and everyone else do the same. We must force them to stop spending our tax dollars on these leeches as they drain away less benefits for US citizens. If we unite, we have the power. My senators, however, share my belief already. (Inhofe and Coburn – OK)

silvernana on February 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Me and Maria and our 9 ninos all very much support senor patron Christ and will vote for him mucho times early and often. Viva la Mexico!

NoBordersJose on February 3, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Count the illegal aliens in the US Census as ILLEGAL ALIENS, not as US Citizens, and deny illegal residents benefits provided from US taxpayers RESERVED FOR US CITIZENS. Use the statistics to bill the Mexican Government for their citizens illegally residing north of their border, and other governments likewise per nationality of illegal alien.

BORDERS. LANGUAGE. CULTURE.

maverick muse on February 3, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Florida houses an estimated 980,000 of the 11.5 million illegals in the US today,

HUH? There are probably 11.5 million in California and Texas alone.

angryed on February 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Once in the nation illegally, one is an illegal alien and that’s the term the Constitution uses for such.
Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

The phrase “illegal alien” does not appear in the Constitution of the United States. Are you talking about some other country’s Constitution?

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM

How long before CNN declares Crist the frontrunner for the 2012 GOP nomination?

hawksruleva on February 3, 2010 at 4:00 PM

The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear that “the whole number of persons in each State” is what is to be counted for apportionment. In the same amendment directly before this, it defines who is a citizen. Thus, if they meant citizens only were to be counted, one must logically assume they would have written citizens and not “persons”.

Therefore Crist is right, despite it being quite detrimental to the Republicans in most of the country.

Besides, a census is supposed to count every person residing in the country at the time it is taken, regardless of whether they’re legal citizens or not. If this is not done, you will not get a valid, correct census – it will have been tainted politically.

I’d say:

a. The census should count every resident, legal or not.
b. Apportionment for representation should be done according to citizens only.

Unfortunately, the Fourteenth Amendment, as written, holds that apportionment shall be done according to number of persons – period.

Seixon on February 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Emperor Norton: Not much point in trying to use logic with Lourdes. She’s made up her mind, facts be damned.

The 14th Amendment says what it says, folks. The word “persons” in Section 2 is plainly meant to encompass more than just “citizens,” as defined in Section 1. Love it or hate it, but deal with it realistically. If you don’t like it, petition your federal and state representatives for a constitutional amendment.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Ed-

It’s illegal “aliens” – not illegal “immigrants”.

molonlabe28 on February 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM

“Florida families should participate in the 2010 census to ensure our state receives the funding necessary to meet the needs of our citizens.”

Emphasis CITIZENS, Mr. Crist.

redfoxbluestate on February 3, 2010 at 4:14 PM

People like Crist think cockroaches are citizens…

right2bright on February 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Oh, si! Two for one tacos in Homestead for anyone voting for Carlos!

Cybergeezer on February 3, 2010 at 4:19 PM

I think that Crist is the “John Edwards” of the GOP. Kirsten Powers said on Fox that she “never liked” Edwards and thought he was a “phoney” from the very beginning. Funny that she never cared to warn of us that when he was running for VEEP or President.

Anyway … Crist is the same way. He’s a phoney. Expect to see him jump to the Democratic party.

HondaV65 on February 3, 2010 at 4:20 PM

So if I live in an area with enough illegals we could be a district wherein I am the only legal voter?

Hell, that’d be awesome; I’d have better than even odds of winning that election. I could probably win it on the cheap too. I’d have my own personal seat in the House; and since the people I’m “representing” don’t get a vote it’d be all me and nobody else. Just like the Founders intended.

I may be misrepresenting the ideals of the Constitution; but if the rules are set up to encourage me to get enough illegals in an area to use the census to give me a personal House of Representatives vote and thereby dilute the effect of all other citizens of the country; why not?

This is a genius plan, why didn’t anyone point it out to me before? All I need is to get enough illegals to live in an area that I’ll own and control. Heck I can put them up for cheap if need be, selling my vote int eh House will more than pay for it.

Graft, control, fraud, and power by the rules… I didn’t realize the Constitution was so damned cool.

gekkobear on February 3, 2010 at 4:24 PM

**sigh**

–PropellerBoy

abobo on February 3, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Someone already said it: TOAST

georgealbert on February 3, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately, the Fourteenth Amendment, as written, holds that apportionment shall be done according to number of persons – period.

Seixon on February 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Well you are right, and since the courts and history has fully supported that fact that in the first section persons are defined (like all legal documents) as being “born or naturalized in the United States”.
This is standard fare for documents, to define words so the definitions do not have to be repeated time and again.
Note the use of persons or it’s derivatives:

“We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union,

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President,

and we know you have to be a citizen to be a president, so why didn’t they say “citizen”? Because it is redundant.

State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, Page 941, 942 (1975)
When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.

So quoting the constitution only made the case that persons refer to citizens only makes your case weaker…so now you understand a little better, and will change your mind because you believe in the constitution…nawwww, I know you won’t want to admit to being wrong, you will never change no matter the facts.

right2bright on February 3, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I am amazed that nobody here (save a passing reference @ 3pm) sees that this is really just a rehash of the framers’ arguments about counting slaves. The Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as persons, to inflate their numbers. The Northern states wanted slaves excluded, and not counted. Crist wants illegals, who often work in near slavery conditions, counted for the exact same purposes as the slave owners did 230 years ago.

All of the “oh, he just wants to follow the 14th Amendment” posters are completely ignoring the historical context here. Are there no originalists here, or is everyone now either (1) a believer in the living Constitution, or (2) the type of absurd textualists mocked mercilessly by Scalia?

Incidentally, most people mistakenly believe that the “3/5ths compromise” resulted from Southerners not wanted to count slaves as real people. The North correctly wanted slaves to be “0/5ths”.

wooga on February 3, 2010 at 4:40 PM

wooga on February 3, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Sorry, being reasonable and stating facts will not get you into the liberals club…

right2bright on February 3, 2010 at 4:45 PM

By what you posted, some racist from South Africa has ‘right’ to vote in an American election.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Please note that the sections of the Constitution I quoted, and my commentary, only responded to who should be counted for apportioning representatives among the States, not who was eligible to vote.

Note that in all places that eligibility to vote is mentioned, the word “citizen” is used, not “person”.

Your “racist from South Africa” only has a right to vote if he becomes a citizen. If he is in the U.S., legally or not, he should be counted for the purposes of determining the number of representatives for the State he resides.

dirc on February 3, 2010 at 4:46 PM

A little history lesson here:

The census counts heads. Not citizens.

Many of your Great, and Great-Great grandmothers who werer LEGAL immigrants were not citizens, because they couldn’t vote, and never bothered to become citizens.

Yet they were counted.

Same with slaves; and the 3/5’s of a person was created to keep Georgia, with a huge slave population from becoming the most populated state with the most representation in Congress.

Wander on February 3, 2010 at 5:18 PM

wooga on February 3, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Sorry, being reasonable and stating facts will not get you into the liberals club…

right2bright on February 3, 2010 at 4:45 PM

But it will get praise from me. Great comment.

barnone on February 3, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Communities should not benefit from hosting illegal aliens, and if they do try to benefit, they’ve lost their standing to complain about extra costs they incur by doing so. If you claim the illegals as your own, then don’t go begging to the federal government to pay for the services they require.

RBMN on February 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM

We could count porpoise and claim they’re due representation since New Agers (and the Obama Admin.) says they’re persons or the equivalent of same.

If Floridians count porpoise, then we Midwesterners will count our grasshoppers and ants.

Seriously, though, Citizenship means something specific AND reciprocal: it is a type of CONTRACT…and a contract requires TWO PARTIES who agree on its terms. Illegal aliens and underpants bombers fail this test!!!

landlines on February 3, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Crist on a bike!

Coronagold on February 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Besides, a census is supposed to count every person residing in the country at the time it is taken, regardless of whether they’re legal citizens or not. If this is not done, you will not get a valid, correct census – it will have been tainted politically.

Seixon on February 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

By that reasoning, an invading army would have its soldiers on US soil counted as US population for census purposes and apportioning representation, if they occupied us at census time. This cannot be the case, in any reasonable assessment, and the same goes for illegals.

With respect to earlier arguments some had made regarding slaves, they need to keep in mind the difference that slaves were here legally. They weren’t citizens, but they were here because we brought them here and that was allowed.

neurosculptor on February 3, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Crist is right on this one. Representation is apportioned by population, not number of citizens, and has been since the beginning of the Republic.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Incidentally, most people mistakenly believe that the “3/5ths compromise” resulted from Southerners not wanted to count slaves as real people. The North correctly wanted slaves to be “0/5ths”.

wooga on February 3, 2010 at 4:40 PM

I have yet to meet the Most People of whom you speak.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Someone wrote this:

But if illegal aliens DON’T count in the Census, and Federal money to the states is based on LEGAL citizens only, this would give Governors with high illegal alien populations an incentive to have them deported, freeing up jobs for American citizens, who could use them in Florida.

Let’s be clear: Governors have absolutely no power to deport anybody. Enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States is solely a power of the executive branch of the federal government, under the direction of the Attorney General.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Let’s be clear: Governors have absolutely no power to deport anybody. Enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States is solely a power of the executive branch of the federal government, under the direction of the Attorney General.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Do cities have authority to declare themselves sanctuary cities ?

macncheez on February 3, 2010 at 8:08 PM

The Constitution is about Citizens, not something that allows anyone from anywhere to enjoy the rights of Americans, of the Constitution that NO ONE at the time believed in or even wants to see enacted world-wide to this day.

100% incorrect. The rights in the constitution, particularly those granting criminal rights have been extended to residents and guests on American soil since the beginning.

Squid Shark on February 3, 2010 at 9:21 PM

right2bright on February 3, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Excellent post.

And, of course, in spite of his rhetoric, Rubio is not really in a position to lecture anyone on immigration.

Squid Shark on February 3, 2010 at 9:25 PM

The plain reading of the Constitution is that the apportionment of Representatives is based on the number of persons in a state, regardless of their citizenship. I don’t think that is the best outcome, but if we want to change it, we need to pass a Constitutional amendment.

dirc on February 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM

A total misnomer, and you know it. The Constitution is about Citizens, not something that allows anyone from anywhere to enjoy the rights of Americans, of the Constitution that NO ONE at the time believed in or even wants to see enacted world-wide to this day.

Amendment has been passed, and it took the 13th to make former slaves CITIZENS. Those former slaves NEVER had a vote. Since slaves weren’t Citizens, they had no vote. By extension, NO non-Citizens bears a right to vote.

But those former slaves were granted Citizenship, that they DO have right to vote.

You are so dead wrong about history.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM

I breezed thru most of the comments, but I recall looking at a copy of the 1st census, where there were several columns to deliniate the counted “citizen men”, “women”, “children”, “others”, “freemenn” and “slaves”. I believe it was only landowners that counted as citizens, while ‘others’ were either foreigners or didn’t own land. This document was a scanned PDF of a bunch of handwritten pages which I inputted into Excel – several years ago, alas, I don’t have access to the file right now, but I digress.

If we must count the illegals, then there needs to be a category for them. Them must not be mingled with “citizens”, otherwise, the states with the large illegal populations would distort the apportionment of representation.

This is the reason why the founding fathers settled on the 3/5 solution. To blunt the clout of the large slave-holding States

Ironically, they’ve been accused of racism for doing so. The truth is that if the South had their way, each slave would be counted as “eaches”, thereby gaining Virginia and the Carolinas an extra seat or two at the expense of the smaller New England States (IIRC a couple had no slaves at all). Taken to its logical conclusion, this would have ensured that civil war/emancipation would have been even longer in happening, i.e. late 19 century, rather than the mid 1800s. On the other hand, not counting the slaves at all would have given the smaller States a huge advantage. IIRC, some of them had more citizens as a whole than the larger plantation States.

AH_C on February 3, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Crist is right on this one. Representation is apportioned by population, not number of citizens, and has been since the beginning of the Republic.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Not quite. You forgot the 3/5 rule. See my earlier post at AH_C on February 3, 2010 at 9:31 PM

AH_C on February 3, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Section 1 specifically EXCLUDES anyone born in the U.S.A. who is NOT “subject to the jurisdication thereof” which means, in the parlance of our times, “anchor babies.” Native Americans, i.e. Indians.

So they may be deemed “persons” but they are not deemed eligible (to advance to Section 2 conditions) if excluded by Section 1.

Read it as it’s written. Start at the top, go through Section 1 then onto Section 2.

If you don’t “pass” Section 1, you don’t get to Section 2.

The “subject to the jurisdiction” part is essential to the entire statement, Sections 1 and 2.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM

FIFY. It meant the same in the parlance of our times as the parlance of our FF’s time.

Other than that, your argument equating citizens and persons as one and the same for the purpose of enumeration, taxes and representation is not borne out by the evidence here and here:

The first enumeration began on Monday, August 2,1790, little more than a year after the inauguration of President Washington and shortly before the second session of the first Congress ended. The Congress assigned responsibility for the 1790 census to the marshals of the U.S. judicial districts under an act that, with minor modifications and extensions, governed census-taking through1840. The law required that every household be visited and that completed census schedules be posted in ‘‘two of the most public places within [each jurisdiction], there to remain for the inspection of all concerned…’’ and that‘ ‘the aggregate amount of each description of persons’’ for every district be transmitted to the President. The six inquiries in 1790 called for the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions: Free White males of 16 years and upward (to assess the country’s industrial and military potential), free White males under 16 years, free White females, all other free persons (by sex and color), and slaves.

And

Enumerators of the 1790 census were asked to include the following categories in the census: name of head of household, number of free white males of sixteen years and older, number of free white males under sixteen years, number of free white females, number of all other free persons, number of slaves, and sometimes town or district of residence. The categories allowed Congress to determine persons residing in the United States for collection of taxes and the appropriation of seats in the House of Representatives. This first United States census schedules differs in format from later census material, as each enumerator was expected to make his own copies on whatever paper he could find. Unlike later census schedules an enumerator could arrange the records as he pleased. This database is certain to prove useful for those seeking early American ancestors.

The United States was the first country to call for a regularly held census. The Constitution required that a census of all “Persons…excluding Indians not taxed” be performed to determine the collection of taxes and the appropriation of seats in the House of Representatives.

AH_C on February 4, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Why don’t we just set up voter registration via our embassies around the world so that anybody can sign up to vote and get it over with.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 4, 2010 at 4:13 AM

YOUR OUT !!!!!!!!!!

saiga on February 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM

True colors accepted…Bye Bye!

Nalea on February 4, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Crist is toast. No more donk’s in waiting. Anywhere!

Kissmygrits on February 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM

NEEDS TO GO.

sheesh on February 4, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Those of you insisting that illegal aliens are to be counted constitutionally, and that that was the intention of the framers, need to answer this question:

Does this count people merely traveling to America? If I’m here on vacation from, say, Germany, am I to be counted? If not, why not? By your own standard, I’m IN the US, and therefore deserve representation in congress.

Do you seriously think the founders intended this? Because, you see, if you say no to the casual traveler who has no intention of staying, then you can only be consistent by denying the same to an illegal alien who is also not a citizen but is also residing (however temporarily) within the bounds of the US.

So now you see how ridiculous your assertion is. Please man up and admit it.

runawayyyy on February 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM

The only thing I want to differ from normal census practice is that Crist and his beard be counted separately.

James on February 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Sorry Charlie; I knew Ronald Reagan, and there’s nothing you can do to make any comparison between you and Ronald Reagan. Give it up.

Cybergeezer on February 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM

It’s a case of numbers. Too many people already, too many who want to get in and stay, too many who are here already and say they aren’t leaving who should not be and are not eligible.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I agree. Back then we needed certain types of immigrants in order to grow & prosper.
Now we need other kinds.
We have every right to change the criteria of legal immigrants.
We no longer need the poor & hungry. They need to stay home & change their own countries’ govts.
We now need intelligent, educated & motivated immigrants who will work hard & contribute-not suck off the govt teat.

Badger40 on February 4, 2010 at 4:47 PM

It does not matter what Crist says or thinks. Rubio is going to win the primary.

Phil Byler on February 4, 2010 at 10:04 PM