Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Democrats Vow To Count Illegals In The 2010 Census
FCP Poker Forum > Daniel's Forums > Daniel's Poker Blog
Pages: 1, 2
85suited
QUOTE
The Commerce Department and Census Bureau declared Tuesday that an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to require the 2010 census to ask all persons their citizenship and immigration status would scuttle any chance that the census could be done on time and would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Scott Threlkeld/The Times-PicayuneU.S. Sen. David Vitter portrays his amendment as an attempt to keep Louisiana from losing one of its seven congressional districts in the coming reapportionment.The warning came even as the Senate Democratic leadership sought to head off a vote on the Vitter amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. An effort by the leadership to invoke cloture failed Tuesday evening, with the fight over whether to vote on the Vitter amendment, which he co-sponsored with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, expected to resume today.

Vitter portrays his amendment as a last-ditch effort to protect the political power of Louisiana and other states with relatively small populations of people who are either not citizens or are not legal residents in the United States, and keep Louisiana from losing one of its seven congressional districts in the coming reapportionment.

The decennial census, required by the Constitution to count all "persons," is used for the purposes of congressional apportionment and legislative redistricting. The result is that places with more people -- regardless of their status -- get more representation.

Or as Vitter put it in floor debate on his amendment last week, "States that have large populations of illegals would be rewarded for that. Other states, including my home state of Louisiana, would be penalized."

Vitter said that in addition to Louisiana, the states of Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and South Carolina "would lose out." He challenged the senators from those states, "if you vote against this amendment, then you are voting against the interests of your state."

By far the biggest winner under the existing system is California, followed by Texas, New York and Florida.

But opponents of the measure described it as ill-advised, and in its intent, both unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department of which it is a part, said that 425 million of the 600 million census forms already had been printed, and that even adding an addenda sheet with the Vitter question also would require rewriting software code, reprogramming scanners and retraining census workers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
nutzbuster
standard
gobears

So it's been ten years since the last census. Most of those years were under GW and with full Republican control of Congress. Me thinks that would have been a better time to put it up for vote than now.

From reading the last sentence, I have no doubts this would cost a ton of money to enact at this late date.
Naked_Cowboy
but we're offsetting the cost with all the money acorn won't be embezzeling.

amirite?!
gobears
QUOTE (Naked_Cowboy @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 3:37 PM) *
but we're offsetting the cost with all the money acorn won't be embezzeling.

amirite?!


Nah - that money will be used for universal health care or TARP 2/3 (I lost track of what TARP we were on)
CaneBrain
I dont know how any human with a brain could read that article and then label it "democrats vow to count illegals in the 2010 census". That's not what it says. It's not even close to what it says. 85, I would think about trying for a headline writing job at Fox News. You'll fit right in.
strategy
.
LongLiveYorke
NO! WE'RE COUNTING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
85suited
QUOTE (CaneBrain @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 9:12 PM) *
I dont know how any human with a brain could read that article and then label it "democrats vow to count illegals in the 2010 census". That's not what it says. It's not even close to what it says. 85, I would think about trying for a headline writing job at Fox News. You'll fit right in.


Let's see Commerce Dept - run by Democratic appointee and hmm let's see...The Census Beauru Chief(democrat), who has to to work closely with the White House (democrat)& Axelord (democrat) & Emanuel(democrat)... Shoot down an admendment "to ask all persons their citizenship and immigration status"

Don't worry - they wouldn't dream of politicizing the census



QUOTE (LongLiveYorke @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 10:46 PM) *
NO! WE'RE COUNTING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Illegal aliens should not be counted in the census. Their presence here is illegal and must not be used to direct federal dollars to the areas in which they serve as illegal squatters
CaneBrain
QUOTE (85suited @ Thursday, October 15th, 2009, 12:22 AM) *
Let's see Commerce Dept - run by Democratic appointee and hmm let's see...The Census Beauru Chief(democrat), who has to to work closely with the White House (democrat)& Axelord (democrat) & Emanuel(democrat)... Shoot down an admendment "to ask all persons their citizenship and immigration status"

Don't worry - they wouldn't dream of politicizing the census




Illegal aliens should not be counted in the census. Their presence here is illegal and must not be used to direct federal dollars to the areas in which they serve as illegal squatters



It's ok I am sure you just don't understand what the word vow means. Because then you would understand the difference between a Democratic politician openly declaring that illegal aliens should be counted in the census and what was in that article.

Also if you have any evidence that what the Commerce Dept. said about the cost of changing the census forms at such a late date is untrue please feel free to present it at any time.
strategy's_touch
the first step to addressing the problem is knowing the scale

frankly I'm shocked that you see this as a bad thing
85suited
QUOTE (CaneBrain @ Thursday, October 15th, 2009, 12:31 AM) *
It's ok I am sure you just don't understand what the word vow means. Because then you would understand the difference between a Democratic politician openly declaring that illegal aliens should be counted in the census and what was in that article.

Also if you have any evidence that what the Commerce Dept. said about the cost of changing the census forms at such a late date is untrue please feel free to present it at any time.



Really - Your going to try and play semantics? Give me a break - you know exactly what is going on here.. Don't try and pretend that this isn't a power grab

They just happend to not print a question about your legal status on the form? They forgot? it was a oversite?


So, since when did Chairman Maobama et al worry about spending hundreds of millions of dollars?
They blew over a trillion dollars last year. Hundreds of millions is a drop in the bucket for these democrats.
CaneBrain
QUOTE (85suited @ Thursday, October 15th, 2009, 1:39 AM) *
Really - Your going to try and play semantics? Give me a break - you know exactly what is going on here.. Don't try and pretend that this isn't a power grab

They just happend to not print a question about your legal status on the form? They forgot? it was a oversite?


So, since when did Chairman Maobama et al worry about spending hundreds of millions of dollars?
They blew over a trillion dollars last year. Hundreds of millions is a drop in the bucket for these democrats.


oh.

love the idea that you are mad they are (according to you) blowing trillions.....and now mad that they wont spend hundreds of millions more on the census. we want fiscal responsibility.....but not right now for this thing!

85suited
QUOTE (CaneBrain @ Thursday, October 15th, 2009, 12:46 AM) *
oh.

love the idea that you are mad they are (according to you) blowing trillions.....and now mad that they wont spend hundreds of millions more on the census. we want fiscal responsibility.....but not right now for this thing!



Thanks for making my point... The democrats have never wanted fiscal reponsibility, except for when it comes in handy in this instance... you guys are a joke
gobears
QUOTE (85suited @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 10:22 PM) *
Let's see Commerce Dept - run by Democratic appointee and hmm let's see...The Census Beauru Chief(democrat), who has to to work closely with the White House (democrat)& Axelord (democrat) & Emanuel(democrat)... Shoot down an admendment "to ask all persons their citizenship and immigration status"

Don't worry - they wouldn't dream of politicizing the census


So I'm sure you were posting about how wrong it was for GW's minions to politicize the Justice Department when they basically said no to every Democrat or Non-Christian who applied for any position right?

And again, if this was so important, GW and the Republicans had six years where they controlled Congress to enact some law to not count illegals. What happened?
DonkSlayer
QUOTE (gobears @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 6:24 PM) *
So it's been ten years since the last census. Most of those years were under GW and with full Republican control of Congress. Me thinks that would have been a better time to put it up for vote than now.

From reading the last sentence, I have no doubts this would cost a ton of money to enact at this late date.


Yet, Dems have no problem spending a shyton when it's something they think is right...I would say counting non-citizens in a census that will, among other things, determine House of Representatives count for each state is worth the extra time and money.

This is pretty standard by statists....get everyone to vote, knowing that those who are a lock to vote for them certainly won't be running to take their seat of power in Washington!
85suited
QUOTE (gobears @ Friday, October 16th, 2009, 12:56 AM) *
So I'm sure you were posting about how wrong it was for GW's minions to politicize the Justice Department when they basically said no to every Democrat or Non-Christian who applied for any position right?

And again, if this was so important, GW and the Republicans had six years where they controlled Congress to enact some law to not count illegals. What happened?



They did in 1790,

The census has drifted far from its constitutional roots
Pot Odds RAC
QUOTE (85suited @ Thursday, October 15th, 2009, 9:40 AM) *
Thanks for making my point... The democrats have never wanted fiscal reponsibility, except for when it comes in handy in this instance... you guys are a joke

This.
Pot Odds RAC
QUOTE (DonkSlayer @ Friday, October 16th, 2009, 7:49 AM) *
Yet, Dems have no problem spending a shyton when it's something they think is right...I would say counting non-citizens in a census that will, among other things, determine House of Representatives count for each state is worth the extra time and money.

This is pretty standard by statists....get everyone to vote, knowing that those who are a lock to vote for them certainly won't be running to take their seat of power in Washington!

Counting non-citizens Illegals to determine the House of Representatives is not a good thing and a serious misapplication of the notion of Representation. How can you justify that as a good thing and money well spent? Implying that illegals should have a say or somehow influence the make-up of the House is wrong. Census results determine more than voting districts. Federal dollars are often allocated based on Census results. States with large numbers of Illegals will be rewarded for the next ten years for having dispropotionate numbers of Illegals.
Pot Odds RAC
QUOTE
The Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department of which it is a part, said that 425 million of the 600 million census forms already had been printed, and that even adding an addenda sheet with the Vitter question also would require rewriting software code, reprogramming scanners and retraining census workers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.


And if this takes hundreds of millions of dollars, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the process.
DonkSlayer
QUOTE (LongLiveYorke @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 11:46 PM) *
NO! WE'RE COUNTING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


I'm pretty surprised someone very reasonable like yourself is completely disregard the end-use of this census, besides just getting a count.
strategy
.
DonkSlayer
QUOTE (strategy @ Saturday, October 17th, 2009, 11:55 PM) *
let's just go ahead and stop discussing fiscal responsibility, because clearly no one cares about that regardless of circumstance.


this.

it's a tired concept that neither side sticks to once they come into power. nh.
Nimue1995
1. Even if the question was asked, I'd be interested to see how successful they are at getting people to admit they're illegal.
2. I'm surprised that the Republicans would want to know how many illegals are here since that would show how abysmal the border protection has been under Bush.
3. Scratch that, since the illegals will surely be undercounted, perhaps they'll use it to show how good the border protection has been under Bush

Okay I'm officially confused which is my usual state,lol.
brvheart
QUOTE (gobears @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 5:24 PM) *
So it's been ten years since the last census. Most of those years were under GW and with full Republican control of Congress. Me thinks that would have been a better time to put it up for vote than now.

From reading the last sentence, I have no doubts this would cost a ton of money to enact at this late date.



Stay off the weed.
brvheart
QUOTE (LongLiveYorke @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 10:46 PM) *
NO! WE'RE COUNTING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Certainly you understand the implications of the census. If it was just counting people, or as strat said, figuring out what are true demographics are, then fine. This isn't an issue. But a huge chunk of our spending is based on these demographics, and of course, most illegals are going to side with the people that want to make them instant citizens and give them tons of free money and health care, at the expensive of the people actually paying for it.
colonel Feathers
Not only illegals, Im sure alot of dead people also.
Nimue1995
QUOTE (colonel Feathers @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 1:15 PM) *
Not only illegals, Im sure alot of dead people also.


This explains all the ghost hunting shows on television. It's obviously training for census takers.
strategy
.
85suited
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 5:21 PM) *
huh?
the system is utterly borked and I see a total headcount and immediate streamlining of the naturalization process as a good thing.



How about those that have been waiting to get in the country legally for years? screw those guys they follow the rules
strategy
.
colonel Feathers
QUOTE (Nimue1995 @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 12:39 PM) *
This explains all the ghost hunting shows on television. It's obviously training for census takers.


You are either extremeley naive, or making a funny. Hopefully the latter.

Kennedy was elected cause he carried the dead vote.
85suited
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 6:40 PM) *
...

the fuck are you even talking about

who is suggesting we screw people who want to do things legally



There is a list of several million eligible people waiting to be legally admitted as immigrants to our country; some of them have been on that list for many years waiting for one of the numerically limited visas to become available. Illegal immigration makes a mockery of those people's adherence to the rules and of our country's sovereignty & encourages more illegal immigration. So by naturalizing the Illegals, you are screw the million people waiting

strategy
.
85suited
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 7:15 PM) *
85SUITED'S SOLUTION:

because we had a broken system in place at one point in time, EVERYONE should be punished for the sake of those who were wronged

please, just quit posting here.


Ahh - don't like the reply, attack and demean...very classy and mature


What is your plan... legalize everyone?
strategy
.
85suited
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 7:24 PM) *
fucking reread what I said at the outset you worthless sack of shit


Your funny, and intelligent


How exactly are you propsing we streamline the process? pretty vague

But since you are obviously an expert on immigration issues, enlighten the uneducated
strategy
.
85suited
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 7:29 PM) *
absolutely fucking retarded.


you are...

typing fast - but as usual - your posts are very insiteful - I have learned alot talking with a 25 year old boy..

Let's see:

Don't like position: insult
Don't like repsonse: find fault with grammer or spelling
Don't like question asked: swear at questioner



strategy
.
strategy
.
85suited
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 7:35 PM) *
I've made it clear that I think it's unacceptable for the US to have a huge swath of human beings inside its borders who don't exist as far as the government's concerned. Document who we have. Make it simple for non-criminals to gain citizenship.

Kill the incentive to be here illegally and forget this waiting list bullshit.



see - we agree

If we enforce our laws, make it illegal for them to get work and services, they will stop coming here in droves. They know we are too weak (dem & rep) politically to do anything about it.

One of my best friends spent 7 years on the border working for the Border Patrol.. It is a mess, but without the backing of a strong goverment - it will never get better
strategy
.
85suited
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 7:40 PM) *
what part of my posts in this thread made you think we didn't?


If I misunderstood your streamline immigration policy statement< I apologize.

strategy
.
Pot Odds RAC
Edited: Nevermind. You guys kissed and made up.
strategy
.
hblask
QUOTE (strategy @ Friday, October 30th, 2009, 6:35 PM) *
I've made it clear that I think it's unacceptable for the US to have a huge swath of human beings inside its borders who don't exist as far as the government's concerned. Document who we have. Make it simple for non-criminals to gain citizenship.

Kill the incentive to be here illegally and forget this waiting list bullshit.


But federal bureaucrats know the exact number of brown-skinned people that should be here. If we say "honest people may register and live here", how would the government control them?
Skeleton Jelly
QUOTE (LongLiveYorke @ Wednesday, October 14th, 2009, 7:46 PM) *
NO! WE'RE COUNTING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Results

"Republican-leaning states will gain at least a half dozen House seats thanks to the 2010 census, which found the nation's population growing more slowly than in past decades but still shifting to the South and West.

The Census Bureau announced Tuesday that the nation's population on April 1 was 308,745,538, up from 281.4 million a decade ago. The growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The nation's population grew by 13.2 percent from 1990 to 2000.

Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade. Nevada, with a 35 percent increase, was the fastest-growing state."


Balloon guy
Wow deep in the results is this;

QUOTE
The number of people stupid enough to believe global warming has decreased due to a brutally cold winter. This number is expected to swing back come the end of spring.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.