The rationalizations and contradictions are throughout Blarman's own posts. Equating people coming for handouts with the slaves is both false and offensive. Political power is not gained from people who can't vote. I did not equate legal and illegal non-citizens; he made that up and proceeded to use it to rationalize his usual personal insults. I am not "disingenuous".

There was no "ruling class" in Atlas Shrugged. It was a novel about the importance of ideas, not Marxist "exploitation" by the "whims of the ruling class". Those are his words, not "inventions of my own mind". Blarman's rhetoric, rationalizing free association of ideas, and personal attacks have nothing in common with *Atlas Shrugged".

Illegals are quite different than legal non-citizens. Your conflation of the two is disingenuous. And yes, the illegals are getting exploited. They can't take their grievances to the local authorities for adjudication. They can't complain about their landlord. They can't complain about their teachers. They can't complain about employers working conditions. I saw this firsthand with some Albanians whose children were going to a public school. The teacher knew they were illegal and threatened to expose them and have them deported if they didn't do what he (the teacher) wanted. I even met the teacher later - he was a jerk.

"People who do not vote are not exploited for political power. "

That's one of the primary reasons California is fighting this: they want the representation which comes with the extra population of illegals whom they are importing left and right, but those very same politicians can turn right around and deny the illegals the right to vote to control their own lives and laws. That's not exploitation? Of course it is!

In Atlas Shrugged, one of the chief methods being used by the ruling class for manipulating people was to make them an offender of a law they could then arbitrarily choose to enforce. Illegal immigration fits perfectly within this mindset because the sheer number of illegals makes them difficult to deal with en masse. Their stories are also manipulated in the media to prey upon the emotions of the populace (see the so-called "dreamers") despite the fact that a large portion of the illegal population consists of gangs, violent criminals and repeat offenders. In my eyes, there is a very open and direct parallel to the book.

"Rationalizing filled contradictions and package deals mixing Marxism with conservative slogans..."

Which are inventions of your own mind and which you are more than happy to keep to yourself. -1. I espoused nothing of the kind.

Non-citizens who cannot vote (but often do anyway) aren't "no different" than slaves being exploited. People who do not vote are not exploited for political power. Equating slaves with people getting "handouts" is a terrible and invalid analogy.

People who come here looking for work or welfare or both simultaneously know what they are doing. They are not slaves "exploited by the ruling class". Rationalizing filled contradictions and package deals mixing Marxism with conservative slogans is not "right out of Atlas Shrugged.

"Times have changed" is not an answer to interpreting the Constitution. Neither is rationalizing what you would prefer.

A lot of people do legitimately object to using the census for open-ended "informational purposes" contrary to Constitutional authority and more fundamental ethical violations through forced interrogation.

The census was not originally related to citizenship or voting. About half the population consisted of women who could not vote. The census was a ten year sampling of the population, including permanent residents and those expected to be replaced. The Federal government was by consent of the people, consisting of all residents, not just voters, represented by the House of Representatives for the people in different geographical regions.

Excluding a temporary invading army from the census would have been a reasonable interpretation (aside from the impracticality of getting enemy soldiers to answer polls or fill out forms). Excluding non-citizen residents, even those here for a short term but being replaced in a statistical trend over a ten year cycle, would be more difficult to justify under the apparent intent of the census.

As much as it is reasonable to want to know how many non-citizens are here, let alone illegals, who aren't supposed to be voting and collecting tax-subsidized benefits, the original intent of the census does not appear to allow that. The left and other statists cannot argue based on that intent in the authorization because they want to use the census and all other government powers to do whatever they want in accordance with whatever their ideology demands.

Thanks.

No, slaves were not getting handouts, but today's use of illegals is every bit as exploitative - which is the point. The leftists entice the illegals to come live here and work here with promises of government handouts - handouts which can subject them to prosecution and expulsion from the country. They are making slaves out of them by making them offenders of the law subject only to the whim of the ruling class in choosing whether or not to impose the penalties of the law - right out of Atlas Shrugged. The illegals provide political power for the elites in no manner different than the slaves of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Your original question about British soldiers was meaningless. My point is that times have changed and that now we do have illegal immigration which must be accounted for and immigration has become more about social programs than building America.

What is the purpose of the Census as it relates to the Constitution? It is for the purpose of apportionment in the House of Representatives. Thus citizenship status is an entirely Constitutional and legitimate question to include on the Census. Only citizens should be counted toward apportionment. Only citizens are legally entitled to vote for representation in government. If one also gathers information on other people living in the United States for informational purposes such as employment, cost of living, etc. I have no problem with that.

That does not address the purpose of the census in the Constitution.

"Everything went downhill" did not start with an was not caused by "verifiable citizenship" with a Social Security card, which was also long after WWI.

trying to stay under the radar...Harry Browne "How to be Free in an Unfree World" was a good friend of mine...trying to live the good life unencumbered...

The immigration laws have changed over the years. The laws around Madison's time were all about: you're welcome to come here, but do so knowing there are no handouts: you're on your own. Around WW I, the laws around open immigration changed drastically and immigration was no longer a given. Topping that all off was the introduction of the Social Security system, which then made verifiable citizenship an official thing so one could qualify for government handouts, and everything has gone downhill from there.

Yea, when arguments are commonly created by asking students simple questions like, “Are men and women different?”, you know something is terribly wrong.

Slaves were not getting handouts.

And look at that ex-Judge, John Paul Stevens.

It is not. The United States doesn't have one. Not that it would bother me if it did; that is the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but we have gotten along all right without its being official so far, so I don't think we need to make it so.

And where have you been all these years, Sgt.
Schultz?

After the Constitution was ratified, calling for a census of counting "persons", there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant and all immigrants were assumed to be becoming citizens. But if the War of 1812 had been the War of 1810 would the census that year have counted British soldiers as "persons"?

Personally, I don't see that it has much practical importance. I mean, an illegal alien filling it out could just lie and claim to be a citizen, and how would anybody know?

I don't know. What used to pass for crazy in the past often seems to be taken for the norm, nowadays.Something totally outside the realm of logic and reality becomes accepted just as the sun will rise in the east.

Don't know why blue California is worried about this when red Texas will have the same questions on their census forms, and looks to lose equivalent representation in the House and Electoral College. Or maybe they're concerned that once an illegal signs a government form declaring such status that they'll be less inclined to register and illegally vote. Might see a glaringly marked decline in California Democrat voter rolls, while in Texas where photo ID's are required to vote, and they don't give driver's licenses to non-citizens, maybe not so much.

Did you know? - https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/...

"The Census Bureau states on its website that personal information obtained through its surveys cannot be used against respondents by any government agency or court. And the disclosure by an employee of any information that would personally identify a respondent or family can lead to up to five years in prison or a fine of $250,000, or both."

But please... let's talk about how this is going to be used to target people here illegally.

“Are they nuts - or what?”
Is that a rhetorical question?

It would be interesting to see the entire thing go down and twenty years later turn into "Escape from LA" (starring Kurt Russell). Because without the rest of the producers to prop them up, they would suffer an epic meltdown.

My biggest concern there would be that China would offer to buy them out - or just occupy them.

Well, if we all spoke the same language then we could all understand each other, express our ideas and reason things out and that would be bad, for those who want to divide and rule us.

Wouldn't it be "interesting" to live in a country run by a government elected in another country by non voting citizens? You think not? Well, if you're a Democrat that is what you are promoting.What if you got in your car that you bought and paid for not to mention insured and when you went to drive it a total stranger pushed you into the passenger seat and told you he was driving from now on. Even if you liked the idea of being chauferred, you might not like the fact that the driver is not necessarily going to where you want to go. But apparently, that's the new Democrat norm.Are they nuts - or what?