California AG To Sue Trump Admin Over Citizenship Question Or Something

The same People’s Republik Of California Attorney General who does all he can to protect illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes, while also attempting to take away people’s 2nd Amendment Rights, is Very Upset that the question of citizenship will be asked

(Fox News) California on Monday promised to sue the Trump administration over its decision to ask the 2020 census respondents if they are citizens of the United States.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the suit against the administration late Monday on Twitter, saying the measure would be unlawful.

“Filing suit against @realdonaldtrump’s Administration over decision to add #citizenship question on #2020Census. Including the question is not just a bad idea — it is illegal,” Becerra wrote.

Of course he’s worried that illegal aliens will refuse to answer

In a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece published Monday, Becerra and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla wrote that the inclusion of a citizenship question would be “illegal” and “an extraordinary attempt by the Trump administration to hijack the 2020 census for political purposes.”

“California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census,” they wrote. “An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college.)”

Nowhere in the article do they lay out the case that the question is illegal. And, it’s a real shame that they added this brand spanking new question to the census

According to the Commerce Department, “almost every decennial census” between 1820 and 1950 “asked a question on citizenship in some form.” The department also said the citizenship question would be “the same as the one that is asked on the yearly American Community Survey (ACS).” The ACS is sent to a much smaller percentage of American homes than the actual census.

All this is about is an attempt to protect illegal aliens and to get more money for California by inflating actual population (illegals should never count). Regardless, California will waste a lot of money on this frivolous lawsuit.

If only they cared as much about federal law when it comes to illegal aliens. Here’s the Commerce Department press release on the census.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

29 Responses to “California AG To Sue Trump Admin Over Citizenship Question Or Something”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: All this is about is an attempt to protect illegal aliens and to get more money for California by inflating actual population (illegals should never count).

    Under the U.S. Constitution, non-citizens count towards congressional apportionment.

    • david7134 says:

      Z,
      Where in the Constitution are illegal aliens even mentioned? Why is this such an issue for liberal when we have skid row towns in all major cities under Democratic control.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Under the U.S. Constitution, non-citizens count towards congressional apportionment.

        Correct.

        The question of citizenship IS legal and IS backed up by the Constitution.

        So why the lawsuit?

        • drowningpuppies says:

          But that question about the number of toilets in your home might be a legitimate lawsuit in waiting.

      • Zachriel says:

        david7134: Where in the Constitution are illegal aliens even mentioned?

        Fourteenth Amendment: 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.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Under the U.S. Constitution, non-citizens count towards congressional apportionment.

      There is no requirement that the individual answer the question, so this is a case of California relying on hate and fear to make a public case and not a legal on.

  2. Zachriel says:

    gitarcarver</strong>: There is no requirement that the individual answer the question

    13 U.S. Code § 221

    • gitarcarver says:

      The Feds haven’t enforced that law since 1970 and there is substantial evidence that it would violate the Constitution and forced speech.

      But nice try.

      • Jeffery says:

        We thought the law was the law. Are you now promoting lawlessness – leaving enforcement up discretion? Interesting.

      • Zachriel says:

        gitarcarver: The Feds haven’t enforced that law since 1970 and there is substantial evidence that it would violate the Constitution and forced speech.

        Possibly, but most people do try to avoid having to test their cases in courts.

        In any case, the proposal will most likely cause an undercount of non-citizens, undermining a fundamental constitutional mandate.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Sorry Jeffery, lawlessness is for people that hate. You know, like those on the left.

    I mean, you had no problem with Hillary breaking the law, did you?

    Still, forced speech is unConstitutional.

    • Zachriel says:

      gitarcarver: I mean, you had no problem with Hillary breaking the law, did you?

      Last we heard, the FBI announced that there was insufficient evidence that Clinton broke the law.

      gitarcarver: Still, forced speech is unConstitutional.

      Not always. Many states have must-report laws when witnessing a crime. People can be compelled to testify in court, such as may happen in Trump vs. Stormy. And you can be compelled to disclose the source and amount of your income.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Last we heard, the FBI announced that there was insufficient evidence that Clinton broke the law.

        More misleading horseshit from you kiddiez.

      • Hoss says:

        Oh, you mean from the FBI director who explained for twenty minutes how Clinton had broken the law, and then went on with the No True Scotsman fallacy. Comey even projected Clinton’s intent, versus whether it was legal or not, and then changed language in his release that changed her actions from being illegal to merely “extremely careless.” There’s so much bullshit to pick apart on that it’s laughable.

        • Zachriel says:

          Hoss: Oh, you mean from the FBI director who explained for twenty minutes how Clinton had broken the law

          The government could not show that Clinton knew there was classified information contained within the emails, so there was no criminal case to be made.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Oh, and the only way the Earth can gain or lose heat is radiatively.
            Right, kiddiez?

            Stop with the made up bullshit.
            Y’all are looking more ignorant than usual.

    • Jeffery says:

      You then agree that no one should be forced to prove their citizenship?

      BTW, you previously typed that people should disobey the law, just because you personally disagree with the law, and because enforcement is lax.

      Yet you decry lax enforcement (i.e., police and prosecutorial discretion) concerning immigrants. Why? Is the law the law, but only sometimes?

  4. Hoss says:

    Counting illegals is ripe for a challenge. It gives states (and their citizens) that harbor large populations of illegals an unfair advantage, and disproportionate power, over the states that do not.

    The question will be in the Census, it’s been there before – and if we want to know what our demographics are, it’s absolutely necessary. If they don’t have to put they’re illegal then nobody should have to report any personal information. And enough with the scaremongering “they won’t come out of the shadows” bullshit; that’s nothing more than an attempt at shaming language that most people outgrow after the age of 5.

    • Jeffery says:

      It’s the fault of the founders and our Constitution.

      The far-right will need to push through an Amendment to only count certain residents in our Census. Maybe they can pass an Amendment to only include white conservatives.

      • david7134 says:

        jeff,
        This is a classic example of your stupidity. The 14th amendment, which is the source of the crap, was passed after the War of Northern Aggression, not by the founding fathers. It was also passed in an illegal fashion as the Southern states were compelled to vote for it at gun point. Z has referenced this amendment to justify inclusion of illegals in the census. But it is clear that was not the intent of the law. Actually I want the illegals counted, but challenge the concept of apportionment of Congress bases on that data as those people will be leaving one way or another soon.

        • Jeffery says:

          dave,

          Section 1, Clause 3: 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.

          That people that think as you do exist in America is disappointing.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: The 14th amendment, which is the source of the crap, was passed after the War of Northern Aggression, not by the founding fathers.

          Turns out that the Fourteenth Amendment is still part of the U.S. Constitution.

          david7134: Z has referenced this amendment to justify inclusion of illegals in the census.

          This is a classic example of your stupidity. The original Constitution had the same provision with regards to immigrants, saying “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.” The Fourteenth Amendment eliminated the 3/5 provision concerning slaves, consistent with the Thirteenth Amendment.

          david7134: It was also passed in an illegal fashion as the Southern states were compelled to vote for it at gun point.

          Was that the same gunpoint used to free millions of people held for generations as slaves?

          • david7134 says:

            Sorry Z, you have to be an adult to understand legals. And you don’t understand it. As to freeing the slaves, how can a nation dedicated to slavery (the US) fight a war based on slavery (which it didn’t, but you claim it did) with another country that uses the economic model of slavery for its accumulation of wealth (which is ok, based on the fact it is still alive and well), that does not make sense, even in the adolescent world you are in. As to stupidity, wrong, you have that all over the board.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Sorry Z

            In other words, you were wrong, but have trouble admitting it.

            david7134: how can a nation dedicated to slavery (the US) fight a war based on slavery (which it didn’t, but you claim it did)

            The South, according to its own articles of secession, fought for the preservation of slavery. The North fought for Union.

    • Zachriel says:

      Hoss: Counting illegals is ripe for a challenge.

      The U.S. Constitution requires an actual count of every person for the purposes of apportionment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5605 access attempts in the last 7 days.