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.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Game over, Dude.

Bruno Strozek on February 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

OK JB, the guy is officially an idiot.

thomasaur on February 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Does this include his relatives who are visiting from Loompaland?

teke184 on February 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Does he want orange people to be counted too?

Knucklehead on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

This confirms that Orangeman is switching parties.

portlandon on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

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.

Ed, I don’t see anyone going for bat for the constitution lately.

upinak on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Is tan orange skin illegal? It should be.

Fletch54 on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Sorry, Charlie.

Not gonna help.

trigon on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Toast.

humdinger on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

..can this clown get any more tone deaf? Why does he not just move to Pennsylvania, run against Spector, and when he wins then he can switch to the (D) party.

VoyskaPVO on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

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

Add about 1 million to both numbers and they would be a little closer to the truth.

LASue on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

If he fails in this election, he could always move up to New Jersey and try to court the “guido” vote.

teke184 on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Honestly-remembering back to the last census, I thought they had already been counting them.
And from my historical census work (hours of it), the US govt has already been kinda counting immigrants.
I truly doubt that back in 1880 they were asking foreigners if they were there legally.
They were just asking if they were naturalized or not & if their parentsd were of foreign birth, etc.
To heck with this culture thing, though.
Illegal immigrants should be convicted of immigrating here illegally & then deported.
When they go somewhere for services, they should be denied if they cannot prove they are legal.
So counting them in the census is stupid.
But I know that is not the real world.
Better yet-let’s ask them if they’re legal & then arrest them & deport them while we’re doing the census.
2 birds w/ one stone.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Bye, bye Charlie.

conservative pilgrim on February 3, 2010 at 2:25 PM

sorry charlie, you’re outta here…

cmsinaz on February 3, 2010 at 2:25 PM

….And, this is just ONE of the reasons why you’ll lose, fart knocker.

HornetSting on February 3, 2010 at 2:25 PM

My personal list of why I don’t like RINOs..

Reason Number 11 million.

IlikedAUH2O on February 3, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I deplore Crist’s position on this but on the other hand isn’t it true that we have counted illegals routinely in previous censuses? I recall reading a report somewhere that, for example, California has 4 or 5 extra congessional seats because of their large population of illegals. So it sounds like standard operating procedure, though one I would like to see changed.

And if it were changed (very unlikely, I realize), so states and cities got less “slop in the trough” then maybe there would be a lot less incentive for grandstanding urban politicians to favor their illegals, for example, with sanctuary status.

jwolf on February 3, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Game over, Dude.

Bruno Strozek on February 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Shame about Charlie Crist. He seems like such a nice guy. Too bad he turned out to be a classic RINO.

UltimateBob on February 3, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Illegals are absolutely counted in the census. It’s one of their goals. The only signs I see for the census with the “Make Sure You’re Counted” message are in Spanish anyway.

brak on February 3, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Charlie Crist, you block head.

portlandon on February 3, 2010 at 2:27 PM

..can this clown get any more tone deaf
VoyskaPVO on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Spray on orange tan causes hearing loss? Who knew.

Knucklehead on February 3, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Uhm, they’ve been counting illegals in the Census since forever. It’s probably several million times to do it this way. It would also help states and local agencies budget realistically.

Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Ed, I don’t see anyone going for bat for the constitution lately.

upinak on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Actually in the IL primary it was very common to hear candidates running to be a GOP nominee for a congressional seat to bring up the constitution and adhering to it. This was the first time I have heard commercials bringing up the constitution. Look for this in a state near you this summer.

WashJeff on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Reason Number 11 million.

IlikedAUH2O on February 3, 2010 at 2:25 PM

+1

Like your screen name btw.

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

GTL

txag92 on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

If we actively stop counting illegals, how does one begin to sort out who is which?

Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

It’s not officially over for Crist until Obama goes down to campaign for him.

NebCon on February 3, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Sorry Charlie, only the best tasting tunas get to be StarKist® FL Senator.

OmahaConservative on February 3, 2010 at 2:30 PM

OT: Scott Brown gets sworn in tomorrow by 1700 EST

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Panic…

Seven Percent Solution on February 3, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Geeze Crist…why don’t you just invite ACORN in, to help you out. They could get all these illegals voter registrations, and pad the polls for ya. How much more, can tax payers afford, or be expected to pay for this?

I’m not an immigration opponent, but I’m sure as hell an illegal opponent. It’s costing to much, and they learn well, and quickly how to work the system. For those that play fair…pay their taxes, work hard….how is this social justice?

capejasmine on February 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

It would also help states and local agencies budget realistically.

Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Another reason to deny services to illegals.
DEPORT.
If you make it hard for people to be here illegally, & there is no incentive to come here to work to ‘do the jobs no American would do’, then we would not have this problem.
Our govt process has been subverted by foreign interest, including illegal aliens.
To heck with the war on drugs.
We need to get serious about our sovereignty.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

This guy is delusional also just like his bosom buddy obama:):)

ohiobabe on February 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Having lived in Miami in 1955-56, and in Fort Lauderdale from 1957-1986, I can say this man is an idiot with a capital IDIOT. Most of my Latino friends were Cubano, and they really wanted to back to Cuba , sans Fidel. Those that decided to stay were proud of their LEGAL status.

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

Absolutely! But the way to resolve the problem isn’t to COUNT criminals. the way to solve the problem is to REMOVE the criminals and keep them from coming back ILLEGALLY! What part of “illegal” do these morons NOT understand?

oldleprechaun on February 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

how does one begin to sort out who is which?

Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Enforce immigration law.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM

OT: Scott Brown gets sworn in tomorrow by 1700 EST

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Where did you read/hear that?

txag92 on February 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Odds of party switch on the BadgerMeter up to 50%.

BadgerHawk on February 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM

WashJeff on February 3, 2010 at 2:29 PM

true.

upinak on February 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM

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.” (Emphasis added.) …

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.” (Emphasis added.)

Red Meat!

I’ve long considered Rubio the (by far) superior candidate and I truly hope that we never hear from Crist again as a Republican, Governor or possible Senator.

I realize states have bloated, excessive Medicaid, education, housing and other costs due to illegal aliens — thus, certain connivers seeking to include the illegal aliens in the census, such as I’m sure most Democrats are eager to do — BUT the nation is ours, us citizens, and as long as someone’s here illegally, they’re not part of that representation-part of the legislative. They’re “owed” nothing except, perhaps, by their own governments, wherever they may be.

Sure do hope Rubio wins.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Another reason to deny services to illegals.
DEPORT.
If you make it hard for people to be here illegally, & there is no incentive to come here to work to ‘do the jobs no American would do’, then we would not have this problem.
Our govt process has been subverted by foreign interest, including illegal aliens.
To heck with the war on drugs.
We need to get serious about our sovereignty.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:32 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

Enforce immigration law.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM

It’s ILLEGAL to use Census counts for any other reason besides counting people. I’m not arguing against enforcing immigration law. The Census, praise god, is not something that can be used by the state to use against you as well.

Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM

How many days until he runs for the Democratic nomination for Senate?

lavell12 on February 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Carrotbottom

The Race Card on February 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Political expediences. Obama’s going to push amnesty like Vince pushing Sham Wows. Crist’s ethics are underwhelming.

kingsjester on February 3, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Someone (Florida voters) needs to put this guy out of his misery. Good grief, what an idiot. And who is giving this guy advice??? Unless the adviser is a Democrat, he needs to “unexpectedly” be fired.

search4truth on February 3, 2010 at 2:38 PM

I think this guy has a political death wish.

thmcbb on February 3, 2010 at 2:38 PM

I hate the census TV ads that we have to pay for. Its basic message is: make sure you answer all the questions so you can get every part of the dole (funding) you deserve. Reminds me of the food stamps ad: you can have a job and get your neighbors to pay for your food.

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

Counting illegals would no doubt give Florida an extra representative or two.

Maybe Crist is angling for a House seat instead of the Senate?

MarkTheGreat on February 3, 2010 at 2:39 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.”

I guess citizenship doesn’t mean what I thought it meant. Damn public education system!

Electrongod on February 3, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I wonder when Florida is going to be the next California and people wish it would fall into the ocean?

upinak on February 3, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Crist must have tried out one of those do-it-yourself lobotomy kits.

Looks like there will be at least one less RINO in the Senate next January.

Dave R. on February 3, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Nothing new:

WASHINGTON — The Census Bureau wants immigration agents to suspend enforcement raids during the 2010 census so the government can better count illegal immigrants.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293517,00.html

brak on February 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM

This confirms that Orangeman is switching parties.

portlandon on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Yep.

SouthernGent on February 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM

V.C -Victor Charlie aka Charlie Crist is Toast come Nov…..The button is now half way up on the bird.

hawkman on February 3, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Charlie , your grasping at straws mate, why don’t you come out and admit you are a Democrat and Zero’s best pal ?

Sandybourne on February 3, 2010 at 2:43 PM

How about we just declare the United States property of the world, and all you Dems lose your power?

You DEMS did everything you could do deny former slaves rights. At Arlington, there are many gravestones of former slaves carved “Citizen’. And you HATED that, as evidenced by LBJ needing–yes, NEEDING–Pubs to pass the Civil Rights Bill.

So, like–it’s okay to count illegals for a vote and gerrymandering, but if I kill an illegal crossing the border, invading the USA, I can be executed for murder?

By the same token, abortion is okay with you but, if I shoot a pregnant woman I’m liable for TWO homicides?

Yeah–you libs are consistent with your inconsistency. That’s about all you have. One Day, you are going to be sooooooooo surprised…

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Whats next cheetoman ?
Voting rights for illegals?

macncheez on February 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I’d like anyone in Congress and state legislatures to note this (if they are reading, don’t know): since MOST CITIZENS are facing (and have faced for years now) ongoing reduction in “healthcare services” offered to us despite us paying for our health insurance ourselves — and Medicare is not providing much but minimal medical care for those enrolled in it, if one can even find a doctor today who’ll accept a Medicare patient — the fact that illegal aliens are receiving medical care on demand at E.R.s and via doctors and Medicaid, SOMEONE should be checking them for citizenship despite the social fallout of such.

Explain, if anyone can, how it is that Obama’s illegal alien Aunt Zietuni has lived in the U.S. FOR YEARS while receiving ongoing medical care AS SHE’S ENROLLED IN MEDICAID, public housing (rental assistance) and a job from a senior center in Boston EVEN THOUGH SHE’S AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, not to mention attorneys, food, likely as not ongoing remedial education/training…

That just makes no sense. Illegal aliens should not be (are not legally eligible for) state / taxpayer funded services, yet many of them ARE enrolled in these and other services (education, food, senior care, transportation).

…while citizens pay for these things for themselves and for the illegal aliens, AND, the citizens continue to lose care overall when/as needed (homeless vets, reduction in military housing and services, including reduction in health care services, for starters).

It’s just beyond reason that illegal aliens are not asked to substantiate who they are and where they’re from and excluded from services they are not legally eligible for, AND that citizens should be receiving what they’re using instead.

The Aunt Zietuni situation is a pitiful example of someone who is here illegally, has been twice issued a deportation order which she’s ignored, who has managed to travel at will all over the country, into the White House, to and from Africa — who in heck is looking at her Passport and what is she using to pay for all this and how is she doing all this on her alleged impoverished conditions — living in public housing while U.S. citizens in need are out in the street…

It’s just pitiful. It’s time the states demand enforcement of immigration laws or if not, that they start enforcing what laws they can themselves (no services for illegal aliens).

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM

It’s ILLEGAL to use Census counts for any other reason besides counting people. I’m not arguing against enforcing immigration law. The Census, praise god, is not something that can be used by the state to use against you as well.

Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 2:37 PM

I understand the practicality of not using them in counts relating to services needed.
But the fact that they’re here at ALL using our services in such huge numbers is a grave concern, I am sure you agree.
I honestly do not know the law regarding the purpose of the census & what its info can be used for.
Where is this stuff spelled out for us?
Guess I’d better read my Const again.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Charlie knows he’s losing votes, tries to figure out whether to go to the base or try to grasp for the “moderates.”

He chose poorly.

Bye now.

cs89 on February 3, 2010 at 2:45 PM

I truly doubt that back in 1880 they were asking foreigners if they were there legally.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Back in 1880, the only thing they asked you when you got off the boat was whether or not you had any communicable diseases. The only thing required to enter the country legally was to pass quarantine.

MarkTheGreat on February 3, 2010 at 2:45 PM

So he wants to count non-citizens in order to steal a couple of seats from states that are occupied by a higher percentage of actual citizens like the state I live in.

It kind of pisses me off that he wants to game the system to steal representation from me, and that’s on top of making a joke of immigration law.

forest on February 3, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Illegals should be counted as negatives, with states with more illegals present losing proportional representation. No state has the right to allow illegals to live freely in our nation and they need to pay for it. The more they harbor the more the states pay in losses of representation.

If there were justice, Crist and the rest of those aiding and abetting illegals would be shipped out with them.

neurosculptor on February 3, 2010 at 2:47 PM

I agree with Crist. Illegal immigrants should have felons on their doors, too, demanding them to fill the Census. Misery – Socialist style.

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Can I say I’m not surprised? Politicians like Crist don’t think about the good of the country; they think about whether some position they are considering will help them.

The thought of a banana republic America probably doesn’t bother Crist a bit. This guy needs to decide if he’s a Republican or a Democrat.

hachiban on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Whats next cheetoman ?
Voting rights for illegals?

macncheez on February 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM

That seems to be the plan. I read last November and December how it was that many commenters made mention of people who voted numerously times in different areas if not states, for Obama, of course. No one checked their multiple registrations or IDs.

And among them, I’m sure many illegals at least voting once (huh, imagine the outrageousness of that, they “only” voted “once”).

The Democrats’ plan is to include illegal alien votes because it amps up the union rolls/doles and of course, votes for Democrats.

Also a large part of why there’s this outcry about requiring a photo ID to vote: illegal aliens object…Democrats object…which pretty well sums up what it is they’re protecting and it isn’t the U.S.A.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Why don’t we count the manatees too?

PatriotRider on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Far be it for me to stick up for a tangerine-colored, twinkle-toed fan of Judy Garland, but as a matter of Constitutional law, isn’t Crist basically right? It don’t believe the Constitution says anything about limiting the count to citizens only; it was probably less of a concern in 1790 than today, but there you have it.

Travis Bickle on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Back in 1880, the only thing they asked you when you got off the boat was whether or not you had any communicable diseases. The only thing required to enter the country legally was to pass quarantine.

MarkTheGreat on February 3, 2010 at 2:45 PM

IN the 19th century there was little to no government operated social programs. So as long as an immigrant was not committing crimes or a public charge, their presence had little impact on others (I know there were tons of job tensions).

Today an illegal immigrant can live off the fruits of legal residents labor.

WashJeff on February 3, 2010 at 2:50 PM

OT: Scott Brown gets sworn in tomorrow by 1700 EST

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Where did you read/hear that?

txag92 on February 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM

FOX News Channel

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Buh bye, Charlie.

OhioCoastie on February 3, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I truly doubt that back in 1880 they were asking foreigners if they were there legally.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Back in 1880, the only thing they asked you when you got off the boat was whether or not you had any communicable diseases. The only thing required to enter the country legally was to pass quarantine.

MarkTheGreat on February 3, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Yeah, and Sweden has a somewhat functional Socialist system with “health care for all” included, riiight.

Sweden also has a tiny population in comparison with that of the U.S.A. Also the U.S. population today is far higher by many millions than it was in “1880″.

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

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 is part of the problem. Power hungry politicians who want to look good by bringing home the bacon. The feds need to get out of this business, especially with a $1.3 trillion deficit.

rbj on February 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Travis Bickle on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Perhaps, but who’s side is he on?

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM

OK JB, the guy is officially an idiot.

thomasaur on February 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

This confirms that Orangeman is switching parties.

portlandon on February 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Agreed. The guy’s is the definition is the definition of a RINO, if there ever was one, and this is coming from someone who is right of center. He needs to go back to practicing law or whatever the hell he was doing before he was attorney general of Florida. No wait. I’m placing my bets on him being appointed to something in Obama’s cabinet so Obama can have another token Republican in his cabinet.

NathanG on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Today an illegal immigrant can live off the fruits of legal residents labor.

WashJeff on February 3, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Make it simple. An illegal immigrant cannot get any welfare services or social security. I don’t think it’s allowed – is it?

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM

The counting of illegal immigrants appears to be legal, although it should not be. The Fourteenth Amendment says:

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. . .

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. . .

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM

as a means to get more pork from Washington:

Ed,

Could you please expound a little more about where and how Washington gets this PORK to pass around.

Let’s start calling it what it really is and where it really comes from, from now on.

belad on February 3, 2010 at 2:55 PM

If you can count them, you can also know where they live, and therefore….DEPORT THEM!!!

PappaMac on February 3, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Perhaps, but who’s side is he on?

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Like all politicians…his own. Sorry POS!

jwp1964 on February 3, 2010 at 2:55 PM

This is why I laugh when liberals accuse tea partiers of only going after Democrats.

There’s plenty of tar and feathers to go around.

The Ugly American on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 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

And the hospital subsidies are important to keep the places open so US citizens can get health care.

It’s actually a terribly difficult issue. Too bad the Bush administration couldn’t be bothered with border enforcement. Of course Obama’s equally as bad. Thanks, politicians!

funky chicken on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Are felons counted in the Census? Just curious.

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Ob*ma scolded the SCOTUS for their decision on campaign ads possibility influencing U.S. elections by foreign countries but, counting foreign illegals is perfectly acceptable. got it!

Electrongod on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

An illegal immigrant cannot get any welfare services or social security. I don’t think it’s allowed – is it?

nyx on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Loopholes:
1. Anchorbabies
2. Multiple IDs
3. TIN #s

macncheez on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Power hungry politicians who want to look good by bringing home the bacon…

rbj on February 3, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Whatever ‘bacon’ they ‘bring home’ seems to be for the billions in costs that are used by illegal aliens and union members, more than anything, anyone else.

I don’t see any “bacon” brought home nor never have. Everything they’re siphoning off in D.C. is being dispersed in those ‘shovel ready’ jobs that pay off existing payrolls in states and create one, two jobs for 9 months, etc. and pay for educational costs and food costs that are doled out to illegal aliens, mostly, or liabilities created by them.

I once used a local paratransit service due to some injuries and noted there was a “daily” senior use of the shuttle service, filled with Spanish speaking seniors all of whom were here illegally — but staying with children in the U.S. and squeaking around the law that way, while using these expensive daily services. Oh, and they were shuttling back and forth to free-feeds daily at senior centers.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

The Census was, and always has been about, CITIZENS of the United States.

Most illegals are from countries that are Catholic in their religion. How would Crist feel if there was a sudden surge against abortion?

I bet he’d be first to demand the Marines cover the border.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 2:57 PM

..can this clown get any more tone deaf? Why does he not just move to Pennsylvania, run against Spector, and when he wins then he can switch to the (D) party.

VoyskaPVO on February 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

He was born in Pennsylvania. We will gladly send him back!!

INC on February 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM

I’m not sure of exactly what Charlie’s point is, here, but it should be fairly noted that states don’t control immigration policy. The federal government does. So, when states are saddled with more than their fair share of illegals (in Florida, this is a consequence of geography more than anything else – South Florida has been hit by several, large-scale immigration crises over the years), it is at least arguable that those states should take whatever measures they deem reasonable to assure their fair share of federal dollars.

Thus, while politically tone-deaf, Charlie’s plea is not beyond the pale.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM

If Charlie had been on the Titannic, when safely in a lifeboat, he would have hopped back on the ship, thinking it would be safer than the lifeboat.

Have a nice life in the Dem party, Charlie.

BuckeyeSam on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM

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. . .

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. . .

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM

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. . .

So, you see, one “person” must be either born in the U.S. or naturalized AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.

Illegal aliens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction but to the jurisdiction of their own nations.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM

bernzright777 on February 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Charlie Crist is on Charlie Crist’s side, just like a rat on a sinking ship. Where’s Anita Bryant when we need her?

Travis Bickle on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I once used a local paratransit service due to some injuries and noted there was a “daily” senior use of the shuttle service, filled with Spanish speaking seniors all of whom were here illegally — but staying with children in the U.S. and squeaking around the law that way, while using these expensive daily services. Oh, and they were shuttling back and forth to free-feeds daily at senior centers.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM

We are the world….sigh

I’d consider getting screened for tuberculosis.

funky chicken on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM

A suggested compromise which I’ve heard before is to count illegal immigants in the Census, but only as 3/5 of a person.

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 3:00 PM

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. . .

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. . .

Emperor Norton on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM

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. . .

So, you see, one “person” must be either born in the U.S. or naturalized AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.

Illegal aliens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction but to the jurisdiction of their own nations.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM

It doesn’t say “OR subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it says *AND* SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF (OF THE U.S.).

The full condition is read as being born here or naturilized AND subject to…

Not simply or only born here or naturalized.

But *AND* subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It’s a complete set of conditions, not an either/or or if one of the first two, then you’re set on the third; it’s a combination of one or the other AND that third thing.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:01 PM

We are the world….sigh

I’d consider getting screened for tuberculosis.

funky chicken on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I was…

I learned while living in Hawaii to never sit too close or in closed quarters with one of the hackers.

Lourdes on February 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I’d consider getting screened for tuberculosis.

funky chicken on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM

While screening for HIV is ‘bigotry’

The Lefist view cannot stand even on it’s on own merits, even able to step up to its own parameters.

Liam on February 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Amendment 14, section 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.”

The term “persons” does not excluded non-citizens. If the amendment meant “citizens”, it should have used that term (as Amendment 15 does, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”).

Also notice the distinction between Citizens and Persons in Article IV, Section 2.

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

I’m not sure of exactly what Charlie’s point is, here, but it should be fairly noted that states don’t control immigration policy. The federal government does. So, when states are saddled with more than their fair share of illegals (in Florida, this is a consequence of geography more than anything else – South Florida has been hit by several, large-scale immigration crises over the years), it is at least arguable that those states should take whatever measures they deem reasonable to assure their fair share of federal dollars.

Thus, while politically tone-deaf, Charlie’s plea is not beyond the pale.

SWLiP on February 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Yep. It sucks, but FL really is in a bind because of all the services sucked up by the illegals. 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

Comment pages: 1 2