Originally posted by Fly-Sig: There was discussion a while back about not counting illegals towards apportionment. The idea being that they are not supposed to be represented in the government, on top of not be allowed to vote for representatives.
Idk if anything will ever come of it, but it would solve a lot of problems.
Constitution says "the people" not "the citizens". And prior to the 13th amendment, slaves were property and not citizens, but they were counted, albeit at 3/5.
I would argue that there was no real concept of citizenship at the time the Constitution was written. If you came here and settled, you were American. The exception being foreign diplomats.
So do we count tourists and foreign diplomats towards apportionment? While the enumeration clause says "persons", does anyone argue it includes tourists or foreign diplomats? If not, and they are lawfully present, why would "persons" include those not lawfully here?
Illegals have no right to representation in Congress, just as tourists do not. Illegals have no right to, nor any lawful expectation to, residency. Heck, even J-1 temporary work visas cannot vote, yet they are taxed. i.e. taxation without representation.
I believe if Congress made a law excluding all non-citizens it would be Constitutional.
Posts: 10166 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002
I am stating the current interpretation that is applied to the census and congressional apportionment. I agree only citizens should be counted, but I am not sure how SCOTUS would ultimately rule on that. They will get a chance to rule on birthright citizenship so that will be an indication.
The apportionment of seats in Congress is required by the U.S. Constitution, which says that the census will be used to divide the House of Representatives “among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,” except for enslaved people, who, until the late 1800s, were counted as three-fifths of a person, and certain American Indians. The 14th Amendment eliminated the partial count of enslaved people, and the total American Indian population was added later to congressional reapportionment calculations. The number of seats in the House was fixed at 435 following the 1910 census. Each state gets one seat, and the remainder are assigned according to a complex formula based on relative population size.
The census count includes everyone living in the United States, except for foreign tourists and business travelers in the country temporarily, according to Census Bureau rules. For apportionment purposes since 1990, military and civilian federal employees stationed abroad and their dependents are counted as living in a state if they provided a state address in their employment records. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S. Island area populations are excluded from the apportionment total because they have no voting representation in Congress.
Posts: 5118 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004
Saquon Barkley’s Trump meet-up riled the racist left — and he won’t accept their shame
By Adam B. Coleman Published April 29, 2025, 6:48 p.m. ET The NY Post
The liberal left has a grand sense of entitlement when it comes to dictating black men’s actions and even our thoughts.
Their constant expectation, freely expressed, is that black men must remain subordinate to a race-centered dogmatic worldview.
The quality of your character doesn’t matter to them: If you’re a black man who thinks for himself, you will face the wrath of a multi-racial liberal coalition hell-bent on ridiculing you into submission.
Saquon Barkley, the Philadelphia Eagles’ Super Bowl-winning running back, is just the latest man to collide with this grievance-obsessed syndicate.
On Sunday, when he chose to golf with President Trump the day before his team’s scheduled White House celebration of their championship, Barkley faced an onslaught of abuse.
While some of his teammates, including quarterback Jalen Hurts, gained acclaim for choosing not to attend the traditional White House function, Barkley caught heat for embracing an opportunity to spend one-on-one time with the president of the United States.
“Disappointing, to say the very least,” scolded former Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins.
Philadelphia sportswriter Les Bowen dripped with condescension at Barkley’s “cluelessness.”
“It’s tricky when people in sports . . . blunder into stuff they don’t fully grasp,” Bowen whitesplained on X. “Not a bad guy, but out of his depth.”
“This skin doesn’t rub off,” lamented commentator and activist Keith Boykin, who sniffed that Barkley’s golf outing was not “in the best interest of black America.”
Boykin even made a dig at Barkley’s biracial family — posting that the Eagles star “cannot escape or erase your blackness by making millions of dollars . . . marrying a white person, or even raising biracial children.”
To his credit, Barkley pushed right back, laughingly posting about the hysterical reaction to his cordial interaction with Trump.
“Lol some people are really upset cause I played golfed and flew to the White House with the PRESIDENT,” he wrote on X. “Maybe I just respect the office, not a hard concept to understand. Just golfed with Obama not too long ago . . . Now ya get out my mentions with all this politics and have amazing day.”
It was just a golf outing, not an endorsement or an expression of support for Trump.
Yet the public shaming is a tactic we’ve seen repeatedly — viewed as acceptable, even expected, specifically because of Barkley’s identity.
He is black and a man, and our demographic is only tolerated if we’re doing as we’re told.
Recall when former President Barack Obama lambasted black men during the 2024 campaign for our “lack of enthusiasm” about Kamala Harris.
The moment we dared to ask questions about the Democratic candidate’s competence, Obama transformed into a finger-wagging male feminist who implied our independent thought was a relic of misogyny.
To the left, it’s very clear there are only two types of acceptable black men: those who remain silent and do as they’re told, and those who loudly and effeminately defend a downtrodden ideology that infantilizes us.
The insults that flew at Barkley from anonymous accounts, calling him a “coon” and worse for according equal respect to Trump and Obama, must be seen as attempts to control black male behavior.
Barkley said nothing about his personal politics, but America’s leftists seem to think of themselves as hammers — and that any contrary political action made by a black man is a nail that requires their force.
Partisans cannot conceive that any individual can choose not to take a side, and partisans of the left-wing variety believe that anything a black person does must be motivated by group activism.
That’s the very definition of racism.
Barkley committed the cardinal sin of racial politics by not caring about racial politics — and for his blasphemy he must suffer the damnation inflicted upon him by our society’s most race-obsessed.
What the effeminate left doesn’t understand is that you can’t shame strong men into apologizing when they feel they did nothing wrong, and you can’t guilt them into changing their behavior to appease strangers.
Just like I respect Barkley’s decision to meet with Trump, I respect Jalen Hurts’ choice to stay home.
A difference in their political perspectives doesn’t make either man more or less black.
Adam B. Coleman is the author of “The Children We Left Behind” and founder of Wrong Speak Publishing.
Originally posted by parabellum: Woodshed, boy! Now you know what the inside of it looks like, don't you?
Fucking weasel little shit
What a scumbag, I'm actually mildly surprised Trump didn't end the interview. The cocksucker admits he is no expert, yet he is fabricating the most heinous bullshit on national TV. This lying sack of shit is not going to be invited back.
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
Posts: 18117 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003
In a shocking-not-shocking exclusive report in The (UK) Times, Europe "would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine" as part of a postwar peacekeeping force. Defense Editor Larisa Brown "was given a rare insight into conversations between Europe’s defence ministers and military chiefs as they thrashed out plans for a 'coalition of the willing' force," and the results are as disappointing as they are sobering.
And you know how much I hate sobering.
British defense chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin asked European defense ministers "if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to [Ukraine] in the event of a peace deal." Britain offered up to 10,000 personnel, but even then, "defence ministers across Europe said there was 'no chance' they could reach that number and that even 25,000 would 'be a push for a joint effort. '"
This is not your father's NATO.
During the Cold War, the British Army of the Rhine stood watch in West Germany for half a century with a force of 50,000 men — and the promise of swift reinforcements almost as quickly as the balloon went up.
Today, all of European NATO couldn't put a peacekeeping force in Ukraine of half that size without wheezing like an asthmatic with a sinus infection hiking up Kilimanjaro.
NATO was always a little fractured and weaker than it should have been. Unlike the Warsaw Pact on the other side of the Iron Curtain, NATO members were independent nations, each with its own priorities and needs.
Paris could complain about American "hyperpower" all it liked, but we didn't send in the tanks — like Moscow would have — when France withdrew its forces from NATO command and ordered NATO troops out of France in 1966. We just made do.
And while Washington was correct to ask for more "burden-sharing" from our allies during the Cold War, it wasn't as though they didn't take the Soviet threat seriously. The West German Bundeswehr consisted of 10 battle-ready heavy Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions, plus another division each of airborne and mountain forces — for a total of 38 combat brigades. That was just the Field Army. The Territorial forces consisted of reserve troops — older men called up to defend their cities, towns, and homes — amounting to another 450,000 soldiers.
But here's the rub.
West Germany raised those forces from a population of 60 million with a GDP of $1.6 trillion in today's dollars. Unified Germany has 80 million people, a GDP of $4.7 trillion, and a military of three divisions that are understaffed, under-trained, and unfit for combat.
The balloon went up more than three years ago in Ukraine, and yet the only substantial-sized NATO member seriously rearming is Poland.
The result of 60 years of Leftist pacifist policies.
_________________________ “Remember, remember the fifth of November!"
Posts: 19108 | Location: One hop from Paradise | Registered: July 27, 2004
2. CBP can still make detainments on the basis of reasonable suspicion and arrests on the basis of probable cause.
The reason this went to her court in the first place was because CBP was accused of picking people up with no reasonable suspicion and holding them for up to five days.
Posts: 25589 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008
I don't think illegals deserve any due process beyond a fair chance to show they are not illegal.
Having myself experienced government error and malicious prosecution in the past, it seems certain that some innocent citizen(s) will be mistakenly picked up for deportation. This is the main reason we need some formal process, which can be super fast and simple. The secondary reason is to kneecap the leftists from blocking deportations.
Fully agreed! If they contest the deportation and cannot prove they belong here in a reasonable time (48 hours should be sufficient for most anybody), then out they go. But if they CAN prove they belong here, then they shouldn't be tossed out without the chance to prove their residency status!
On the other hand, people that are known gang-bangers from foreign countries... well, I am happy to see them go ASAP! The .gov just needs to know they are mistaking that person for someone who belongs here. And if they are, yet are still a known gang-banger, then lock them up here and throw away the key!
____________________________ Bill R. North Alabama
_____________________________ I just can't quit grinnin' from all of this winnin'!
Posts: 4983 | Location: Madison, AL | Registered: December 06, 2009
Originally posted by Fly-Sig: First, do you ever go out without your ID?
Yes, quite often, in fact.
Personally, I never leave the house without at least my wallet and cellphone. In case of some kind of accident, I want my identity known ASAP, and the ability for myself or responding EMS to contact my wife immediately!
Just my personal opinion; nobody has to agree with it! Now back to Trump-related comments...
____________________________ Bill R. North Alabama
_____________________________ I just can't quit grinnin' from all of this winnin'!
Posts: 4983 | Location: Madison, AL | Registered: December 06, 2009
Pie-In-The-Face Ann Coulter, a big critic of Trump after he was elected in 2016 (she supported and campaigned for him), expresses her enthusiasm for the first 100 Days of this term. Plus her commentary on the Judicial vs. Trump is worth the listen.
And this is 2 hours long, but worth the time. Trump's cabinet meeting in regards to the first 100 Days. And I agree with everyone here- these 100 days were awesome.
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
Posts: 18117 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003
Originally posted by oddball: And I agree with everyone here- these 100 days were awesome.
Very understated!
I believe this will go down in history as the most consequential first 100 days in US history. Except maybe George Washington simply because he was establishing an entirely new paradigm. No other President has instituted so much change so quickly. No other President, again perhaps excepting Washington (and maybe John Adams), has worked for only the long term good of the country without any personal goal of future power or wealth.
We frequently don't recognize the magnitude of world changing events as they happen. As the downstream effects of this administration evolve, the 2024 election is going to be one of very few events referred to as how things were before vs after.
Posts: 10166 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002
Pie-In-The-Face Ann Coulter, a big critic of Trump after he was elected in 2016 (she supported and campaigned for him), expresses her enthusiasm for the first 100 Days of this term. Plus her commentary on the Judicial vs. Trump is worth the listen.
Ann Coulter is always interesting. She says what she thinks, that's for sure.
"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown
"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor
Posts: 25734 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009
