A lot of attention has been given lately to Project 2025, a 900+ page blueprint for a second Trump administration produced by the collective efforts of many conservative activists and published by the Heritage Foundation.
The report is highly specific, addressing each federal agency on a program-by-program basis. It can be hard to sink your teeth into Project 2025. There is so much jargon, so many specifics, so many agencies and programs, so much detail, it can be hard to understand the broad thrust of the document. This paper looks at just a single federal agency: the Census.
I never appreciated the scope and importance of the Census until my opportunity to serve as Adams County’s Complete Count Director during the 2020 Census. There are few agencies where it’s more important to keep politics out. The Census generates financial information and forecasts that governments and businesses rely on for developing growth plans. The numbers must be trustworthy. All the economic plans in the country are worthless if these numbers are suspect.
But the Census count is even more important. It’s used to determine who gets how much federal resources and it directly affects political power: apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives, electoral votes, and state legislative seats.
So it’s worrisome to read in the third sentence:
… will require that both committed political appointees and like-minded career employees are immediately put in place to execute a conservative agenda.
This is a statement about far more than the conduct of the Census, though it says plenty about that. But it’s really a statement about government: that everything is partisan, that the point of government is to reward your allies and screw your adversaries.
It is indeed true that local communities approach the census count from a self-interested perspective: they want every bit of representation and very federal dollar they can get. But the people doing the counting should be scrupulously non-partisan; they (should) want the most accurate count possible.
It’s important to emphasize that the Census isn’t concerned with the morals of whether you’re living with your boyfriend, or whether that extra “roommate” who sleeps on the couch is in violation of the lease, or whether someone is here legally. Red, white, brown, green, or blue; married or unmarried; gay or straight; citizen or non-citizen: a person is a person is a person. If you live in Adams County, we want to count you.
Reading on, we find a concern about “lack of conservative participation” in the partnership program during he 2020 census. The partnership program, according to the document, aims to “promote responsiveness to the census by employing trusted voices in various communities.” It’s hard to emphasize how much against Census norms – and how wrong-headed – that statement is. There is general consensus that disadvantaged communities, Hispanics, the homeless, Native Americans, low income families, immigrants, and other disadvantaged groups are the hardest to count and represent the highest risk of an undercount. Little point would be served by pushing turnout aggressively in affluent white suburbs – they already filled out the form. In Adams County, we concluded at the outset of our effort that our biggest challenge was likely to be the community of Spanish speakers concentrated around the fruit industry. And, indeed, the highly detailed analyses from the Census showed us exactly where our count problem was: Spanish speaking households in York Springs and other up-county areas. And to communicate with them, we needed people they knew and trusted. Hiring someone to do outreach at The Links would have been pointless.
Of course, we need to understand that the authors of the 2025 report are the aggrieved group who contend that there indeed is a victim class in America that needs civil rights protection from rampant discrimination: white men. So perhaps it’s unsurprising that their complaint about 2020 is that “lack of conservative participation was one factor in an undercount …” Oh, if only they had been able to reach those hidden masses in The Villages.
Other worrisome comments include:
- Any successful conservative administration must include a citizenship question … which won’t gather any information the Census needs – unless it’s being made part of the immigration enforcement apparatus – but will suppress the count among immigrant groups.
- The data under Biden Administration proposals could be used to bolster progressive political agendas.
This is a Blueprint for an administration that views the Census not as an objective data collection and analysis group, but as an instrument of the partisan, redistricting project – and possibly immigration enforcement. When we were working on the 2020 census, we found a surprising level of suspicion – from all sides of the political spectrum – of the Census Bureau’s motives. Militia types thought it was a precursor to gun confiscation and FEMA Camps; immigrants feared deportation. In 2020, it was at least possible to assure suspicious people that their data was totally safe. In 2030, my counterpart might have to say, “Well, yeah, you’re quite right to be concerned.”
One small agency, but it makes the point. This is Project 2025: a deep digging, sophisticated effort to politicize EVERYTHING the government does. But I suppose if you grew up believing Steve Bannon’s nonsense about a “deep state” developing your weather forecasts and inspecting meat packing plants, then I suppose a “do it to them before thy do it to you” view of the government makes sense. For those of us living in the reality-based world, it’s a scary vision.
Project 2025, overall, is a big reason to Vote Blue across the board. Seeing one party so determined to gain and retain power forever by this plan is scary. Trump claims he doesn’t know about it or support it, but it’s many in his staff who created it and Vance certainly supports it. Does anyone seriously believe Trump?
I’ve been registered and usually voting red most of my adult life. I’m still registered red, but wow, has my party changed under Trump, and not for the better.
For what it is worth, I think it is the citizens’ lack of knowledge of how the legal system works and how one “consents” to be governed by and subject to the government’s civil laws that are causing so much anger and hatred being expressed among the people.
If you are registered to vote as a citizen of the United States, and, even if you do not vote, it is my understanding that by registering to vote you are presumed to have “consented” to be governed by the civil policy, rules, and regulations – i.e. civil laws – put in place by the elected officials that the “majority” have voted into office.
“That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. (This is because “All men are born equally free and independent”) – [Pennsylvania Constitution]. There [in one’s natural state], every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent. Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70 (1796) – Emphasis added
According to this court decision for the civil laws of a body politic to pertain to a man who was born free, this man must first “consent” to be governed by those civil laws.
This decision is in line with the following:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness –That to secure these Rights. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,…”
If a man born free cannot be governed by civil laws of a political community or body politic without his consent then can a man born free be compelled to consent to be governed?
Consent – A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing as in the balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another. It supposes a physical power to act, a moral power by acting, and a serious determined, and free use of these powers. Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
We must understand that “When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which as an individual not affected by his relations [or membership] to others [in the body politic], he might retain. … a body politic is a social compact by which the whole people covenants [contracts] with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” It authorizes the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to conduct himself, and so use his own property, so as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government and has found expression in the maxim “From this source come the police power,” Under these powers, the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each [citizen] shall use his own property, when such regulations become necessary for the public good.” See Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)
If the above court decisions have not been overturned then citizens of the United States as parties to the Social Compact must subject themselves to the civil government and its civil rules and regulations or pay the penalty for not subjecting themselves to these regulations.
The reason the citizen cannot complain is that he has voluntarily submitted himself to the dominion of such a form of government and voluntarily “consented” to be governed by its civil laws whether these laws were enacted and being enforced by a government that is controlled by the Democratic party or the Republican party. To-wit:
“Citizens” are members of a political community [body politic] who, in their associated capacity have established or submitted themselves [consented] to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.” Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109 in Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
“Protection draws with it subjection and subjection protection.” Maxim of Law
“The protection of an individual by government is on condition of his submission to the laws, and such submission on the other hand entitles the individual to the protection of the government.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition, page 1100 definition of “protection.”
So what can be done when the “People” decide that the current form of government becomes destructive of these Ends [i.e. to secure to the people their Creator-given rights to life, liberty & property] outlined in the Declaration of Independence?
According to the Declaration of Independence, “… that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them [the People] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Of course, the Declaration of Independence goes on to say, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly, all Experience hath shown, that Mankind is more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.”
I suppose the question is, if and when the People will decide that the Evils under which they are presently suffering or “complaining about” have become insufferable and that the time has come for the People to abolish the present form of government and institute a new Government, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Judging by the present political climate and the hatred expressed by the members of both political parties toward the members of the other party I think the time has come when all the “People” both citizens and non-citizens in the country ought to be praying for PEACE because I don’t think abolishing the present form of government and instituting a new government will be any more a peaceful process than it was when the present form of government was instituted.
I do think that becoming aware of the fact that civil law pertains solely to citizens and inhabitants who have established their permanent residence or domicile in the country will go a long way in the citizens’ understanding of why they are subject to the many civil laws, and statutes, that regulate their conduct toward each other and how they may use their property. A citizen member of the Social Compact cannot violate the terms of the Social Compact to which they have “consented” to be governed.
If I have made any errors in what I have written above please correct my errors. I am seeking the truth, not attempting to win an argument with my neighbors whether they be Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.
PEACE
You obviously are devoted to the letter of what is written, no doubt.
I see the documents you cite written centuries ago by intelligent men who would be turning over in their graves if they were to come back and see how unwilling many currently are to have updated their views based upon what we know now, via science, experience, etc. Would we do the same with medicine? Technology? Keep these, and other things like it, only current to the 1700s (or 1800s) era?
I doubt they would want to see so many dying in our country due to the 2nd Amendment they wrote. I think they would want America to be more open to immigrants, most of whom are interested in helping the country, not hurting it. They’d want to see them working too. I think they would want to see ALL people to be equal, not just men, and not just those of a particular religion or ethnicity.
Regardless, I listen to Trump’s own words to his minions and each time I pray for Kamala to win.
Fortunately, Biden did step down. I wish Trump – the other old guy who seems to be not quite on top of things, esp when one listens to him speak – would too.
And as for me, I prefer reason and common sense, not reasoning out the word of any particular statement that the writer might not have even intended to use if they knew it would come with controversy from some eons later – and even if they did – life has advanced since those days. I prefer to advance with it.
Otherwise, I presume you always follow the speed limit and never exceed it since you agreed to be governed by the Powers That Be that said you can only go so fast. For me, I tend to travel with traffic – meaning roughly 65-70 in the 55mph zone heading to and around DC. Going just 55 there would be dangerous to others due to the way traffic is flowing. I’ve actually yet to see someone do 55 there on any of the multiple trips I’ve traveled that road (unless there’s a traffic slowdown, of course).
What do you now know by science, experience, reason, and common sense that makes you think you know that “most of these people coming across the southern border [illegally] are “interested in helping the country” as you wrote?
How exactly are the ones that have already illegally come across the border presently helping the country?
Scientifically speaking and using your experience and common sense, what percentage of these people entering the country illegally are actually harming the country?
What do you mean by saying, “All people should be equal?”
Equal – Means alike with respect to rights. The word “equal” in law does not imply identity but duality and the use of one thing as the measure of another.
Alike – Means similar to another. The term is not synonymous with “identical,” which means “exactly the same.”
Identical – Means exactly the same for all practical purposes.
There is equal protection of the laws in the 14th. Amendment but, “Of course, most laws differentiate in some fashion between classes of persons. The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid classification. It simply keeps government decision-makers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respect alike [i.e.- in the same class of persons in the same situation].” F.S Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920)
Using reason and experience I can see that Amendment 14 federal citizens are in a different class of persons than non-resident illegal aliens. This means that Amendment 14 federal citizens have certain rights and obligations that persons who are non-resident illegal aliens do not have.
The equal protection of the laws means that any one person who is in the Amendment 14 citizenship class of persons is to be treated the same as any other person in the same situation who is also in this federal citizenship class or persons. The same goes for persons in the “illegal non-resident alien” class of persons or any other class of person like “transient foreigners” or “resident aliens.”
You wrote, “As for me, I prefer reason and common sense, not reasoning out the word of any particular statement that the writer might not have even intended to use if they knew it would come with controversy from some eons later – even if they did – life has advanced since those days. I prefer to advance with it.”
What do you mean by saying “reasoning out”? What word have I “reasoned out” in what I have written.
Life is advancing day by day but the “truth” is an important element that we must consider as we together use “reason” to distinguish which of these so-called advancements of life are good and based on truth and which are not so good and based on falsehoods.
Many areas of life are advancing but some things remain the same such as “truth.” What was true in 1776 is just as true today as it was in 1776.
For instance like the “self-evident truth” that all men are Created and born equal and that all men have certain unalienable rights and that governments are instituted among men to secure to these free-born men their Creator-given rights to life, liberty and property and that the government that was “ordained and established” by “We the People of the United States” derives its just powers from the “consent” of the people who have voluntarily consented to govern.
Another truth is that no man or woman can be compelled to “consent” to be governed by the government’s civil or municipal statutes, rules and regulations without their consent.
Have these self-evident truths become untrue because “life has advanced” since those days?
I suppose for you “truth” is relative to the individual and there are no absolute truths. If that is the case then the word “truth” has lost all meaning. If everything is true, then nothing by definition of the word is true,
Because truth is believed to be relative then there are no absolute truth and that is why we now find ourselves in a dilemma in which we are now living in a continuous state of chaos..
But something has to bring unity because we cannot live long term in a state of chaos. If the people cannot be unified on what is true and what is not true then something else will have to bring unity because we cannot live in a state of chaos long term. The police power of the state will eventually bring a forced unity at the point of a gun.
“Reason” is defined as “A faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and which enables the possessor of [reason] to deduce inferences from facts or propositions.
If you “prefer reason” then using reason or this faculty of your mind please distinguish and point out any “falsehoods” in what I have written so that I may correct my errors.
Finally, you wrote, “I presume you always follow the speed limit and never exceed it since you agree to be governed by the Powers That Be that said you can only go so fast.”
The point I am attempting to make is that when you purchased an automobile and applied for a Vehicle Certificate of Title, registered your automobile as a “passenger car,” and apply for and are issued a Pennsylvania Drivers License then these act on your part are evidence of your “consent” to be governed by all the provisions of the Vehicle Code in the use of your passenger car, including obeying the posted speed limit no matter your opinion of what is a safe speed at the time you were stopped.
Finally, you said that you “tend to travel with traffic” because you have decided that keeping within the speed limit would be dangerous to others who are also exceeding the speed limit by ten or fifteen miles per hour. Well, I don’t know if the traffic police will be convinced that the reason you were speeding and exceeding the speed limit was for safety reasons. Good luck on that one.
Of course you are at liberty to exceed the speed limit for any “reason” that to you seems to be based on your mind distinguishing truth from falsehood at the particular time you were stopped for speeding. If your are found guilty of exceeding the posted speed limit the judge will order you to pay the fine or lose your driving privilege.
Only our agreeing on what is true and what is not can bring true unity in the bond of peace..
As always please correct any errors in what I have written above. I am seeking the truth, not attempting to win an argument with a neighbor.
Peace
Mr. Reed, what evidence do you have to support your position that for 24 rounds of the census, every human body was counted unless specifically excluded.”
Decennial Census of Population and Housing – The U.S. census counts every resident in the United States. It is mandated by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution and takes place every 10 years. – Census Bureau.
Resident – Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests the genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical presence within the State together with indicia that his presence within the State is something other than merely transitory in nature. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition
According to the Census Bureau website the “census” does not count every human body in the State, The “census” only counts those persons who are residents who intend to remain within the State, and evidence exists that their presence is something other than merely transitory.
Residence appears to be a matter of individual intention or choice and is not determined by merely living in a dwelling in the State.
The Pennsylvania Constitution states that “all men are born equally free and independent” so how could these men also be born Amendment 14 federal citizens and members of the body politic at birth?
“… that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness –That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…” Declaration of Independence
For the civil or municipal laws to apply to a man he must have voluntarily “consented” to be governed by the civil law by either voluntarily acquiring citizenship or as an alien inhabitant voluntarily establishing a permanent residence or domicile in the State.
No consent is required for a man to be subject to the common or criminal law whether he be a “citizen” or “non-resident alien.
“A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if this birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign...” 3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens
I was born on land located in Pennsylvania, one of the States of the Union.
Is Pennsylvania “a territory” over which the United States is sovereign?
Perhaps citizenship can be acquired at birth but only IF the birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign like being born in the District of Columbia or one of the federal territories where the United States federal government is sovereign,
Acquire – To gain by any means, usually by one’s exertions. It appears that one must exert himself in some manner to “acquire” Amendment 14 federal citizenship.
Mr. Reed, I would like to also thank you for discussing the Census matter and who is to be counted, as well as how a man born free acquires Amendment 14 federal citizenship and “consents” to be governed by the civil law and subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I’d like to thank Jim Neely for a perfect illustration of exactly the problem with the possible “conservative” takeover of the Census. For 24 rounds of the census, there was no confusion about who gets counted: every human body unless specifically excluded. Excluded were “Indians not taxed” and of course the notorious 3/5s clause. No debates about “of” or “in.” No reference to dictionaries that weren’t written until 40 years later. We count everyone. That’s never been at issue in any census.
Mr. Neely has laid out a logical and plausible rationale for changing all this, presumably to exclude non-citizens. I think it’s safe to assume if a Project 2025 head of this agency, we’d get a rationale like this to justify excluding non-citizens. This would significantly change the official distribution of population.
Make no mistake, there is no more principle here than there is for the similar logic to construe the 14th amendment as not conferring birthright citizenship. Like the new Supreme Court focus, what we have here is the highly selective use of historical anecdote to justify a pre-conceived decision. It’s a simple matter of distributing power and money. Under a Project 2025 Census, the non-citizens would still be there (presumably until the deportation police rounded them up), but their jurisdictions wouldn’t receive, for example, the school aid to assist with their education.
More profoundly, perhaps, this change goes a long way to create a caste structure. From “bring me your poor, your huddled masses” to “non-citizens don’t count.”
Again, the first 44 presidents had no confusion about what the Census clause in the Constitution meant. Herbert Hoover’s census (1930) and Richard Nixon’s (1970) counted the same people as FDR’s (1940) and Harry Truman’s (1950). It’s only Project 2025 that says “we’ll change what the Constitution means to switch power and money to Red states.” And, as I said, a small agency that illustrates a large problem.
What is the legal definition of the term “census?”
Census – The official counting or enumeration of people of [not “in”] a state, nation, district, or other political subdivision. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
What is the legal definition of the term “Federal census?”
Federal census. A census of each state or territory or a certain state or of any subdivision or portion of any state provided it is taken by and under the direction and supervision of the Census Bureau of the United States and approved and certified by it as the census of that state or subdivision. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
It appears a “census” is counting the people “of” not “in” a state and a “Federal census” is “the counting of people “of” each state or territory taken by and under the direction and supervision of the Census Bureau “of” the United States.
Who are the “people “of” a state or territory that are to be counted in the Federal Census and how do they differ from those people who may be “in” a state or territory but not “of” a state or territory of the United States?
What is the legal definition of the term “of?”
Of – A term denoting that from which anything proceeds indicating origin, source, descent, and the like. Associated with or connected with, usually in some causal relation, efficient, material, formal, or final. The word has been held equivalent to after; at, or belonging to; in possession of, manufactured by; residing at; and from. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition
Not everybody within a State of the Union is “associated” with or “connected with” the United States federal government or body politic and therefore would not be related to or belong to the United States federal government as would an Amendment 14 federal citizen who is a consenting member of or belonging to the civil political community or body politic. These unrelated people would not be “residing” in a state but rather they would be sojourning “strangers” or “non-resident aliens” or in legal terms “transient foreigners” just passing through the state or federal territory.
So, into what class of persons do all these so-called illegal aliens belong, and should they be counted in the next Federal census as if they are “people” OF a state?
Is there a difference between being “of” a state and being “in” a state?
In – It denotes present or inclosed, surrounded by limits; as in a house; in a fort; or a city [or state]. It denotes a state of being mixed as sugar in tea It denotes present in any state; as in sickness or health It denotes present in time. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
It appears to be possible for people to be “in” a state without also being a citizen/member “of” or “connected” to a state or body politic.
The point is words and terms have meaning and they usually mean what they are defined to mean. Ignorance of the meaning of words and terms is not in the best interest of free-born people who wish to exercise and enjoy their Creator-given natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on private property that they have lawfully acquired.
I would think that the Federal Census is to enumerate the people who are “Federal citizens” who are members OF the body politic and who “reside” permanently in one of the states or federal territory.
What is the legal definition of the term “Federal citizenship?”
Federal citizenship – Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of the United States. State or status of being a citizen of the United States. A person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he resides. 14th. Amendment, U.S. Constitution. – Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
Whether you are a liberal democrat or a conservative republican one thing is for sure if you are an Amendment 14 citizen of the United States federal government you have rights and obligations that are not yet vested but which are accruing by reason of your being a federal citizen and one of the obligations of being a federal citizen is to submit to the dominion of the federal government which the majority of federal citizens have elected to office whether the majority elected and ruling be democrats or republicans.
The citizen cannot complain about the government because he has submitted himself to the dominion of such a form of government and he (the federal citizen) owes his allegiance and fidelity to the government that he has voluntarily CONSENTED to be governed by.
“Citizens” are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.” Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 p.2d 101, 109
What is the legal definition of the term “dominion?”
Dominion – Perfect control in right of ownership. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition
I’d like to thank Mr. Neely for his civil manner. But at the risk of unleashing another torrent of quotes from dictionaries, I have to get the discussion back to my point: the census.
My original point is that Project 2025’s view of a “conservative census” was a vision to make the Census part of the partisan redistricting project – and perhaps the immigrant deportation project.
The Census DOES NOT limit itself to citizens or people with green cards. It counts every resident. In my answer I carelessly used the term “every human body” but the distinction we’re arguing about is clear. Tourists don’t get counted. People visiting Pennsylvania don’t get counted in PA, but rather wherever they live.
But that’s not the point Mr. Neely is making. He is advocating a highly restrictive view of “citizen” and “resident” that would leave millions out of its count.
Mr. Neely, in essence, agreed with the conservative view, arguing, for example,
“So, into what class of persons do all these so-called illegal aliens belong, and should they be counted in the next Federal census as if they are “people” OF a state?”
“Is there a difference between being “of” a state and being “in” a state?”
And
“I would think that the Federal Census is to enumerate the people who are “Federal citizens” who are members OF the body politic and who “reside” permanently in one of the states or federal territory.”
This argument is consistent with the direction project 2025 is advocating: a restricted count that leaves out millions of people. And it’s wrong. The Census has hundreds of pages of interpretations. For example, college students in PA are considered PA residents, even if the bills are still paid in New Jersey and the student votes in NJ. But the Census makes it clear, citizenship doesn’t affect your status in the Census count.
But it probably would under a “conservative census” – and certainly would under a “Neely census.”
In the process of responding, Mr. Neely raises many tangential issues and strays far from the original point, among other things drawing a non-existent distinction between “citizens” and “Amendment 14 citizens,” thus implying that there are categories of citizen and, I guess, to paraphrase Animal Farm, that “Some citizens are more equal than others.” Then he raises this point:
“For the civil or municipal laws to apply to a man he must have voluntarily “consented” to be governed by the civil law …”
“If a man born free cannot be governed by civil laws of a political community or body politic without his consent then can a man born free be compelled to consent to be governed?
And
“It appears that one must exert himself in some manner to “acquire” Amendment 14 federal citizenship.”
“Not everybody within a State of the Union is “associated” with or “connected with” the United States federal government or body politic and therefore would not be related to or belong to the United States federal government as would an Amendment 14 federal citizen who is a consenting member of or belonging to the civil political community or body politic.
This of course is the well known “sovereign citizen” nonsense that you can avoid the need to register your car or pay taxes by citing some quasi-legal gibberish. The ultimate intent of all of it seems to be an extremely restrictive definition of terms like “citizen” and “resident” and the creation of a “civil body politic” that leaves many of us out.
Mr. Reed, we now agree that “residents” are to be counted, not every”human body” in the State as you wrote.
I am not arguing with you I just wanted to point out that only residents in the State are to be counted.
.
My question was, are illegal aliens by legal definition “resident aliens” or “nonresident aliens?”
Would you agree, that if they are “resident aliens” they are to be counted in the Census?
If they are “nonresident aliens” do you think they also should be counted?
At the risk of upsetting you with a torrent of definitions from a legal dictionary, I think it would be helpful if we agreed on the legal definition of the term “non-resident.”
Non-resident – One who does not reside within the jurisdiction in question. One who is not an inhabitant of the state of the forum. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition
What is the legal definition of the term “non-resident alien?”
Non-resident alien – One who is neither a resident nor a citizen of this country. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
That seems to be clear enough to me. Do you agree with these legal definitions?
Mr. Reed, are these millions of illegal aliens by legal definition resident aliens to be counted or non-resident aliens not to be counted? They are surely not citizens, are they?
Mr. Reed, I never wrote anything about not registering a car or not paying taxes so why are you implying that what I wrote is promoting some “sovereign citizen” nonsense? I agree that the idea of being a “sovereign citizen” is nonsense.
I am simply presenting the legal definitions of these legal terms as written in Black’s Law Dictionary. They are what they are and I am not doing anything to make them any more restrictive than they are, as you suggest.
So, we are back to this question. Are these illegal aliens “resident” or “non-resident” aliens?
What is your opinion?
If they are non-resident aliens are they to be counted?
The more you research the subject of residence and citizenship the more complicated and confusing it gets.
Thanks for acknowledging your misuse of the term”every human body” instead of “every resident.”
Now if we can agree as to whether these illegal aliens are resident aliens to be counted or non-resident aliens not to be counted I think we can put this Census matter to rest.
Thanks for the conversation.
Peace
There is nothing in the least bit complicated about THAT question. Yes, they are to be counted.
And if Project 2025 brings in a “conservative census,” they won’t be. The result on the economic analysis side will be, those studies will pretend they’re not there. So for developers, those potential shoppers or homeowners won’t exist. Those potential students won’t exist for the people planning school expansions. And so forth.
And, of course, when it comes time to divvy up school aid and the like, the formula will pretend those students don’t exist. So we’ll still be educating them, we just won’t be getting the per capita ai. That’s what a conservative census gets you.
The 2020 Census forms were addressed “TO RESIDENT” at a certain address in PA. These Census forms were not addressed and sent “TO NONRESIDENTS.
But, to you, there is nothing in the least bit complicated about the question as to who is to be counted. You wrote, “Yes, they [nonresident aliens] are to be counted” even though the Census forms are sent only “TO RESIDENTS.” at a certain address.
You want to continue counting nonresident aliens as “resident aliens” for commercial purposes so developers will know those potential shoppers, homeowners, and potential students exist for people planning school expansions.
If millions of illegal nonresident aliens show up in the communities in Pennsylvania I don’t think we will need an official Census count to “know” these aliens are here and need to be taken care of.
What you are concerned about is getting federal aid to take care of these nonresident aliens which is a concern. But, is it fair to allow nonresident aliens to violate the law and come into communities illegally and then afford them all the privileges and immunities to which only citizens and those who are in the country legally and lawfully are entitled?
Mr. Reed, it does not matter if some want to confine the Census count to citizens only or residents only or include nonresident aliens. The truth is Amendment 14 in Section 2 states the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed are to be counted.
So your argument to continue counting nonresident illegal aliens is best defended by pointing to Section 2 of Amendment 14.
Of course, who are these “persons” in Amendment 14 to be counted?
Are they the “persons” mentioned in Section 1 of Amendment 14 that is “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction” of “the” [not of “these”] United States who are United States federal citizens?
Amendment 14 refers to “the” United States. It does not read “these” United States referred to in Amendment 13. The term “United States” has three meanings so which meaning was intended for the term “United States” in Amendment 14? This seems like a fair question.
As I said, the more you research citizenship, residence, and domicile the more complicated and confusing it gets. Of course, you would have to read the historical record to realize that Amendment 14 claimed to have been ratified in 1868 created or at least recognized for the FIRST time a citizenship of the United States as distinct from that of the states. See the “Fourteenth Amendment” definition in Black’s Law Dictionary 5th. Edition.
Amendment 13 states that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What is the difference between “slavery” and “involuntary servitude?” Amendment 13 did not state that “voluntary” servitude shall not exist in the United States.
Mr. Reed, we need to agree on the definitions of these legal terms used by the “legal minds” that write these laws, rules, and regulations to have an intelligent conversation about who the “persons” are that they apply to. I have yet to find one statute, rule, or regulation that uses the words man, woman, or people as the subject of the regulation.
PERSON – In general usage, a human being (natural person), though by statute the term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, trustees, etc. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
There can be natural persons and artificial persons. But, there cannot be an artificial man.
RESIDENT ALIEN – A resident alien is a “person” within the meaning of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition, page1029
Are you certain that “a person is a person is a person” in Amendment 14?
Are nonresident aliens “persons” within the meaning of the due process and equal protection clauses of Amendment 14?
If not then “nonresident aliens” must be in a different class of persons within the meaning of the term “person” used in Amendment 14.
Citizenship is a status that comes with certain privileges and obligations that non-citizens do not have.
The ultimate question is this, How do you know what you know (or think you know) is TRUE?
Mr. Reed if you believe that “a person is a person is a person” and that there are no different classes of persons then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion but with all due respect, the evidence shows that all men and women are not in the same class of persons and that there are artificial persons.
CLASS – A group of persons, things, qualities, or activities, having common characteristics or attributes. The order or rank according to which persons or things are arranged or assorted. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th. Edition.
PERSON – A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him and the duties which it imposes. The term may include artificial beings as corporations. A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th. Edition. page 1300
Again Mr. Reed thanks for the conversation. I have offered evidence to support my position that the “persons” to be counted in the Census would be confined to the “persons” referred to in Section 1 of Amendment 14 that is “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the the jurisdiction thereof.
Wouldn’t the persons as defined in Section 1 of Amendment 14 be the same persons in Section 2 that are to be counted? If you think not then why not?
Did you know that a “county” is a “person” in a legal sense?
As always please correct any error I may have made in what I have written above. I am always seeking the truth and peace not winning an argument with my neighbors.
Jim, I run up the white flag. I surrender. You own more dictionaries than I do and you are a human border collie of argumentation. No matter how many times I answer you, no matter how many times I point out your errors, there is always one more dictionary, one more definition that has utterly no relevance to the matter at hand.
Before I start, I caught you. You denied you’re a sovereign citizen, but then you write this “Amendment 14 claimed to have been ratified in 1868 …” Gotcha!!! I know that BS sovereign citizen argument.
First to deal with this: “The ultimate question is this, How do you know what you know (or think you know) is TRUE?” BECAUSE I RAN THE 2020 CENSUS IN ADAMS COUNTY!!!!! I don’t need to debate what a person is or if there are different categories of citizens or who we should count. I counted them.
I’ve tried to point out some of your erroneous premises. Once more:
1) There aren’t different flavors of citizens. If I go to the Dedication Day ceremony in November, every one of those 16 people who take the citizenship oath is EXACTLY THE SAME citizen the second after they are pronounced to be citizens as I am.
2) Equal protection means equal protection, not “all 27 year old naturalized citizens might get different protection from ‘amendment 14’ citizens and different yet from a green card holder.”
3) Your argument that an illegal is by definition a non-resident is, at least in the eyes of the census, 100% wrong. Of course, to get back to the original point, a Project 2025 census probably would define them out, as would you, and I’ll tell you again, that would destroy the census.
4) The Census could not care less how Black’s Law Dictionary defines things. Nor for purpose of this discussion, could I. Waste of breath. Meaningless distraction.
5) No, a person born in the US does not have to take action to become a citizen nor do people get to decide whether to submit to the law.
6) All your arguments about classes of people, artificial people, etc., is pure sophistry and has nothing whatever to do with the Census.
OK, now this: “You wrote, “Yes, they [nonresident aliens] are to be counted” even though the Census forms are sent only “TO RESIDENTS.” at a certain address.” With that, Jim, you threw away what tiny credibility you had and you forfeited any right to my attention. There is no cheaper, more bush league stunt than to misquote your interlocutor. I DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU QUOTE ME SAYING and you know it. I address illegals and you then bootstrap your wrong definition of illegals into my quote. Shame on you.
OK, now this: “You want to continue counting nonresident aliens as “resident aliens” for commercial purposes so developers will know those potential shoppers, homeowners, and potential students exist for people planning school expansions.” First, no, your premise that illegals are by definition non-resident is still as wrong as it was the first time I corrected you. But, yes, the rest is correct. You’ve described one of the three purposes of the census and if we start leaving people out, those economic studies become worthless.
Finally, this. “ I have offered evidence to support my position that the “persons” to be counted in the Census would be confined to the “persons” referred to in Section 1 of Amendment 14 that is “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the the jurisdiction thereof.” No. You haven’t. Nothing in the torrent of words, the quotes from Black’s, the argument about classes of citizen, is any evidence whatever relevant to the question “who gets counted.”
With that, I’m done with this conversation. I’m sure that inevitably you’ll send another answer but my participation in this discussion has ended.