It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oh, it is ON! CA sues over Census Question.

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
The one before that, I had one census worker force his way in my door physically


I can see the headline if I'm ever on the receiving end of that:
CENSUS WORKER BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN CHOKE SLAMMED THROUGH ARCTIC ENTRYWAY BEFORE HAVING CLIPBOARD INSERTED INTO LOWER G.I. TRACT.

I had a kindly old lady try to conduct a household employment survey related to the census a couple of years ago. It was supposed to happen monthly for a year, I declined each month to participate. She kept showing up every month for the first several months. I also refused to provide her with my phone number. After 4 or 5 months, she asked me if she'd give me her business card, if I would please just call her on the first Friday of each month to say "I refuse to participate" as she was required by DC to force me to state that each and every month. I *67 called her each month to say the same "I refuse to participate." The final month she thanked me, said that even though I was a stubborn young man I was always polite to her and didn't grind my anti-government ax against her trying to do her job.

I have no idea if I was really within my legal rights to refuse to participate, never really cared to be honest, I just was not going to waste my time on an exercise so entirely unbeneficial to myself and my personal thoughts on the census. For 2010, I filled out names, DOBs, and SS#s for my household, left the rest blank, and shipped it back... they did not push the issue.




posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Same with some other criminals, like felons.


Another thing I don't agree with. Part of rehabilitation eventually means fully reinstating someone. Removing voting rights for a few years can be part of a punishment, but once that punishment is over, a felon should be no different than anyone else.

One could even use felons as an example, because they have no political representation, the justice system over punishes them, and does lifelong harm to them rather than fulfilling the stated mission of reintegrating them into society.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I agree....felons should have all rights



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's not politically expedient for them to push it. I doubt they ever would.

When I had that issue with the census worker, I never thought it was the fault of the census, just the person who they wrongly hired.

The whole time he was there before I grabbed his shoulder and walked him out, I had a death grip on my Black Labs collar to keep that guy safe. If you've ever been around Labs, they are natural guard dogs and nothing to fool with.

These days I'm not sure how much sense a physical census makes anyway. Weighted polling is likely as accurate anyway.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You don't think residents should have a say in where they live? What's the phrase, no taxation without representation? They get taxed...


originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Liberals, please tell the truth here: if all the illegal aliens voted for republicans would you still be in favor of letting them vote?


I don't care who people vote for, or if they vote at all. I think that all residents should have voting rights. Without the power of a vote, you become an underclass. Look at what has happened to Puerto Rico (and they're even citizens).

I think that citizenship as you're referring to it, is something of an archaic concept.


They aren't residents. That would be like saying I reside in your house if I break in and refuse to leave. You can't possibly believe that argument...

Tell the truth, if you KNEW they were going to vote for republicans, would you still want them to vote in our election?



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


...rather than fulfilling the stated mission of reintegrating them into society.

Rehabilitation is not the mission of the law. Rehabilitation is something we try to do when possible to better satisfy the law.

The purpose of the law is to protect the public and establish equity among citizens. We incarcerate criminals in order to both punish them so they hopefully will not commit another crime, while ensuring the public is safe from them during their incarceration. There is also the anti-incentive of knowing that, should one be caught committing a crime, one will lose their position in society. We fine people not to rehabilitate them, but to ensure a punishment to try and dissuade them from repeating their actions, and to let others know those actions have dire consequences.

Capital punishment certainly does not rehabilitate... but it certainly does protect society from the individual punished.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

i say count every single one of the people living in us but only have house reps granted on basis of how many actual citizens live there but exclude all the non citizens from that purpose .



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
They aren't residents. That would be like saying I reside in your house if I break in and refuse to leave. You can't possibly believe that argument...


Nothing says a residence has to be legal. The home owner would be in their rights to have the person removed, but that doesn't change the fact that that's where they're residing at that moment.


Tell the truth, if you KNEW they were going to vote for republicans, would you still want them to vote in our election?


I did. I don't care who people vote for. Your argument makes it sound like you're against it because you think they'll all vote for democrats.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.

www.bop.gov...

Rehabilitation is the goal. That's their mission statement.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

And that's why the crime rate is so high. I'm glad you approve.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

And that's why the crime rate is so high. I'm glad you approve.


TheRedneck


It would be lower (and it's been going down over time) if the justice system actually accomplished reform. Punishment is only secondary, and harsher punishments don't actually deter crime.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

A unicorn in every garage.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
They aren't residents. That would be like saying I reside in your house if I break in and refuse to leave. You can't possibly believe that argument...


Nothing says a residence has to be legal. The home owner would be in their rights to have the person removed, but that doesn't change the fact that that's where they're residing at that moment.


Tell the truth, if you KNEW they were going to vote for republicans, would you still want them to vote in our election?


I did. I don't care who people vote for. Your argument makes it sound like you're against it because you think they'll all vote for democrats.


Actually the Constitution says residents have to be legal. Our Constitution guarantees rights to the people of this nation and no other.

I am not against it because I think they will vote democrat. I believe the only reason democrats are in favor of letting them vote is because they vote democrat. There is a difference.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




Nothing says a residence has to be legal. The home owner would be in their rights to have the person removed, but that doesn't change the fact that that's where they're residing at that moment. 




So you say that you're okay with removing uninvited "guests", but think they should have a place at the table and a vote for what's for dinner as soon as they get past the door?



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The Bill of Rights applies to everyone in the world in their dealings with the US government. It isn't limited to citizens only. There's a few rights which apply to citizens only such as the right to vote, but that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is the amount of representation each state gets in Congress. And for that, we should definitely be including all residents in a state.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

i had this argument years ago when we were torturing muslims. I agree...inalienable rights apply to all humans. If our government was consistent on this it would be really nice.

In the meantime, im curious what rights would be with held out of our bill rights if someone was not afforded representation for being here illegally?



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
So you say that you're okay with removing uninvited "guests", but think they should have a place at the table and a vote for what's for dinner as soon as they get past the door?


There's two issues at play here. The first is who we count for the purpose of population distribution, that's what the census does. That should definitely be including everyone, legal or not, because those are numbers the government needs to collect and if we gather data on citizenship status, illegals won't report, and our data will be tainted.

The other issue is who gets what rights, I see this as a seperate issue but as I said before, I think citizenship is an archaic concept and that everyone who lives in a community should get a say in how it's run, from ordinary residents, to illegals, to felons, to long term guests.

As far as removing illegals goes. Tying into the concept of citizenship, I have no problem with illegals. If we treat them better they can get bettter jobs, work hard, move up, and improve the community. I am against trying to legislate an underclass of people to abuse. If people want to come here, I don't see it as the role of government to stand in their way. If they commit a crime while here beyond being illegal (which shouldn't even be a status honestly), that's what the court system is for.
edit on 29-3-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
In the meantime, im curious what rights would be with held out of our bill rights if someone was not afforded representation for being here illegally?


I'm not so sure it would be the Bill of Rights that would see changes, but rather all the other rights which aren't enumerated.

It's my belief that the Bill of Rights is a very flawed document. It was written with the best of intentions, but not only has the government worked hard to erode it in recent years (pariticularly in regards to electronic data), but I believe there's an all too common sentiment among the people where the popular opinion is that the only rights we have or should have are those enumerated in the Constitution and as such the Bill of Rights has gone against it's intended purpose and is stiflng discussion on any additional rights, for example the rights to privacy, health care, and travel, as well as an unhealthy focus on original intent which has come up regarding the 1st, 2nd, and 4th most often.

The US is a big place though and we have examples of what happens when one doesn't have a vote. Look at the difference in response to the hurricanes in Puerto Rico vs Texas. Another example would be American Samoa which is poverty stricken and recently began trying to get citizenship (the first step in being able to vote). Without the ability to vote, you have no voice in governent.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The document is less flawed that the education of our nation.


It just seems to me that there is no protection provided for non-citizens to have representation.

If that is the case, then we have a Special Counsel that is investigating nothing.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
It just seems to me that there is no protection provided for non-citizens to have representation.


14th amendment, 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.

edit on 29-3-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join