The Three Fifths Compromise And Illegal Immigration

From commenter "LiveFreeOrDie" comes a short video on The Three Fifths Compromise and Illegal Immigration.

I’ve put together a video on illegal immigration with a good hook, where I compare the current dynamics to the 3/5 Compromise.

It's good explanation of the origins of the compromise, which is almost universally misunderstood (or purposefully conflated with its opposite intent). Just ask a recent college graduate what it is and what it means, and you will see...

[Another version of the video is embedded below the fold...]

ThreeFifthsCompromise from Joshua Davenport on Vimeo.

Posted by: CBD at 02:30 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1

Nice to see willow hasn't lost her touch.

Posted by: Soothsayer at June 23, 2019 02:35 PM (JAi0L)

2 Can't be.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:35 PM (HaL55)

3 Shazbot! I knew it.

I just clicked and this thread was like, right there, man.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:36 PM (HaL55)

4 I prefer the 3/6ths compromise

Posted by: G marks the spot at June 23, 2019 02:36 PM (j5RRD)

5 4 I prefer the 3/6ths compromise
Posted by: G marks the spot at June 23, 2019 02:36 PM (j5RRD)

Kinda half-assed.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 23, 2019 02:36 PM (NWiLs)

6 sooth I was First and maybe last!

Posted by: willow at June 23, 2019 02:37 PM (r/xAU)

7 Big bowl of nuthin, that's what I gots.

Posted by: Cheriebebe at June 23, 2019 02:37 PM (a4qVe)

8 my speaker pluggy doesn'twork,pleasetellmehowthe3/5 was explained.

Posted by: willow at June 23, 2019 02:38 PM (r/xAU)

9 Others fetched

Posted by: G marks the spot at June 23, 2019 02:38 PM (j5RRD)

10 Purposely conflated? No shit.

Posted by: JAS at June 23, 2019 02:39 PM (I5SAg)

11 Three fifths compromise is where you have one buddy who doen't know what good bourbon tastes like, so you get him Jim Beam while you and your other buddies drink Buffalo Trace and Woodford.

Posted by: Pug Mahon at June 23, 2019 02:39 PM (VAJVe)

12 5 4 I prefer the 3/6ths compromise
Posted by: G marks the spot at June 23, 2019 02:36 PM (j5RRD)

Kinda half-assed.
Posted by: Insomniac at June 23, 2019 02:36 PM (NWiLs)

----------

Motherfucker!

Posted by: Brie Larson at June 23, 2019 02:41 PM (gC2IV)

13
Pretty darn brilliant. Maybe in Tom Cotton's presidency we can get to work on the rewording of that 14th amendment.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 23, 2019 02:41 PM (13CQC)

14 Very few people know what the 3/5 compromise was all about or that the Southern States actually wanted 5/5, or better said all counted.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:42 PM (mpXpK)

15 Doubt a college student will know what the 3/5 comprise was. The Leftist version is the only thing they ever heard.

Posted by: Skip at June 23, 2019 02:42 PM (BbGew)

16 Oh no. We were just talking about arguing logic at people who don't speak it. Trying to educate someone on the 3/5ths thing and explaining that it was intended to disenfranchise ACTUAL LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHO WERE RACIST is impossible if they haven't used up all their angry yet and still have loads more angry where that came from.

I'm going to go play some songs with a 3/4 compromise.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 02:42 PM (t+qrx)

17 Has Joshua Davenport gotten any death threats yet from the loving, tolerant and inclusive left?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 23, 2019 02:43 PM (ivkO2)

18 It really doesn't matter anyway. There are no more slaves to be counted.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:44 PM (mpXpK)

19 Losing one arm hardly makes one 3/5 of a human being!

Posted by: michelle fields at June 23, 2019 02:44 PM (Dh1wo)

20

Christ Almighty.

In a new Doctor Who episode, "Britain's first muslim heroine" of WWII will be featured. And, it's a woman.

Posted by: Soothsayer at June 23, 2019 02:44 PM (JAi0L)

21 The problem is to understand the 3/5ths compromise takes intelligence, historical knowledge, and intellectual honesty, traits that are shockingly rare.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at June 23, 2019 02:45 PM (kfdLC)

22 Didn't all the 3/5ths gobblygook and talk about telling others what to do from Washington DC and Scott v. Sandford lead to shooting in 1861?

All governmental powers come from the barrel of a gun.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at June 23, 2019 02:45 PM (Z+IKu)

23 As for it's application for today: the blue states would LOVE illegals to openly vote. Apples and oranges.

Posted by: CN at June 23, 2019 02:46 PM (U7k5w)

24 That's a great video outlining the problem and the solution.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:47 PM (HaL55)

25 Oh no. We were just talking about arguing logic at people who don't speak it. Trying to educate someone on the 3/5ths thing and explaining that it was intended to disenfranchise ACTUAL LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHO WERE RACIST is impossible if they haven't used up all their angry yet and still have loads more angry where that came from.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 02:42 PM (t+qrx)

Try this argument: the North wanted black slaves to be counted as 0/5ths. The South wanted them to be counted as 5/5ths. So tell me who was racist by liberal logic.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at June 23, 2019 02:47 PM (kfdLC)

26 Very few people know what the 3/5 compromise was all about or that the Southern States actually wanted 5/5, or better said all counted.
Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:42 PM (mpXpK)

It's pretty much only Democrats that are willfully ignorant of it. Because one of them unintentionally briefly glanced at the Constitution a couple decades ago and thought they found something racially inflammatory they could use to swing votes.

Posted by: Sjg at June 23, 2019 02:48 PM (gDSJf)

27 I still don't understand why they were dancing.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 02:48 PM (t+qrx)

28 The lesser known 1/5 compromise estabished whiskey measurements .

Posted by: Can't resist temptation at June 23, 2019 02:49 PM (2DOZq)

29 No to representation without taxation!

Posted by: OldDominionMom at June 23, 2019 02:49 PM (t0Z53)

30
In a new Doctor Who episode, "Britain's first muslim heroine" of WWII will be featured. And, it's a woman.
Posted by: Soothsayer

There's none of that sjw garbage here:

http://pluto.tv/live-tv/doctor-who-classic

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at June 23, 2019 02:50 PM (aKsyK)

31 Only an AP U.S. History student from the 1970s or earlier knows what the 3/5ths thing was about. It is NOT taught in college, unless you are a student of U.S. History.

Posted by: JAS at June 23, 2019 02:50 PM (I5SAg)

32 It is NOT taught in college,

Just what IS taught in college now, outside of STEM departments (and maybe even some of them are questionable)?

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at June 23, 2019 02:51 PM (kfdLC)

33 I got about a minute into that video. I knew all that in the third grade.

So for those with the stomach to pursue it is he proposing some proportional representation for illegals?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 02:51 PM (fuK7c)

34 31
Only an AP U.S. History student from the 1970s or earlier knows what the
3/5ths thing was about. It is NOT taught in college, unless you are a
student of U.S. History.

Posted by: JAS at June 23, 2019 02:50 PM (I5SAg)

I borrowed a US History book from a friend of mine that is used at Wofford. I don't recall seeing anything in it about the 3/5 compromise.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:52 PM (mpXpK)

35 Compromise hell I need all 5 5ths.

Posted by: HRC at June 23, 2019 02:53 PM (UdKB7)

36 We do live in a country in which the only party nominally opposed to government control that could not overturn the most invasive and far-reaching set of laws in the PP / ACA.

Clever ideas like that don't even begin to approach the situation we are in.

We are seemingly incapable of taxing remittances to countries that are encouraging their citizens to break our laws.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 23, 2019 02:53 PM (DrqHq)

37 What is bad about that history book is I had the local bookstore order me a copy. Since it was used as a college text it was expensive. Someone borrowed it from me and never brought it back.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:54 PM (mpXpK)

38
Just what IS taught in college now, outside of STEM departments (and maybe even some of them are questionable)?
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at June 23, 2019 02:51 PM (

------------

Maximizing Your Victimhood 101

Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 02:54 PM (gC2IV)

39 So for those with the stomach to pursue it is he proposing some proportional representation for illegals?

If you'da watched the whole thing, you'd know.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:54 PM (HaL55)

40

In a new Doctor Who episode, "Britain's first muslim heroine" of WWII will be featured. And, it's a woman.

Huh. As I recall, the Muzz were Hitler's best pals.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at June 23, 2019 02:55 PM (oVJmc)

41 If you'da watched the whole thing, you'd know.

Sure. But I don't wanna.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 02:55 PM (fuK7c)

42 So for those with the stomach to pursue it is he proposing some proportional representation for illegals?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 02:51 PM (fuK7c)

Nope. Changing 'persons' to 'citizens' in the text.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 02:56 PM (t+qrx)

43 Only an AP U.S. History student from the 1970s or earlier knows what the 3/5ths thing was about. It is NOT taught in college, unless you are a student of U.S. History.
Posted by: JAS at June 23, 2019 02:50 PM (I5SAg)

It was correctly taught in junior high US History in the 90's, by a left wing teacher even.

Posted by: Sjg at June 23, 2019 02:56 PM (gDSJf)

44 39
So for those with the stomach to pursue it is he proposing some proportional representation for illegals?

If you'da watched the whole thing, you'd know.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:54 PM (HaL55)

CA already counts illegals for the purpose setting the number of legislators.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:56 PM (mpXpK)

45 The solution consists of a single word in the 14th Amendment. It's simple, easily understood and makes sense, which is why it'll never happen until Barron Trump becomes preezy.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:56 PM (HaL55)

46 Very crafty video conflating states wanting slaves counted in the census with states wanting illegals counted in the census.

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 02:56 PM (CFSlN)

47 Actually, like, the founding fathers chose 3/5ths because they knew black people couldn't pronounce 3/5ths and so they were sent to the concentration camps.

Step One: "Tree-fiddy"

Step Two: Concentration camp.

Patriarchy completed!

Posted by: Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez at June 23, 2019 02:57 PM (gAXBD)

48 just watched Hotel Mumbai on dvd - great movie
I understand they fictionalized the main characters ( combining stories of survivors) bit the main plot is fairly accurate

However, if you look on imdb so many negative reviews claiming it's "stupid" "boring" " too gory" - guessing the reviewers are muzbro butt kissers

Posted by: vmom superior, order of sweet merciless ninjas at June 23, 2019 02:57 PM (dm05u)

49 CA already counts illegals for the purpose setting the number of legislators.

But that's just for the State House, right? I don't think they've changed the number of DC reps, but I think they want to for that reason.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:57 PM (HaL55)

50 You know what I don't know much about? The Articles of Confederation.

We laud our founders as the cream of the Enlightenment, but they fucked it up before they got it right.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 02:57 PM (fuK7c)

51 This is why Democrats are so violently opposed to the citizenship question in the census. They are thinking Republicans will use that to hammer States like CA.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:58 PM (mpXpK)

52 As the interpretation goes today, an illegal alien with four wives has at least five bodies contributing to 'proportional representation'. A US citizen with a US spouse has two.

Which 'person' would a state prefer if money and power depend on body count rather than citizenship?

Posted by: mustbequantum at June 23, 2019 02:58 PM (MIKMs)

53 49 But that's just for the State House, right? I don't
think they've changed the number of DC reps, but I think they want to
for that reason.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:57 PM (HaL55)

I think its for both.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 02:59 PM (mpXpK)

54
*?*

I must have learned about the 3/5 when I was in high school. U.S History? Civics? One of those.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 23, 2019 02:59 PM (w54mS)

55 Very crafty video conflating states wanting slaves counted in the census with states wanting illegals counted in the census.
Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 02:56 PM (CFSlN)

Democrats gonna Democrat.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 02:59 PM (t+qrx)

56 You know I have the same initials as the Articles of Confederation, right?

Posted by: Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez at June 23, 2019 02:59 PM (gAXBD)

57 I think its for both.

Posted by: Vic

I am pretty sure that California does not get to make its own rules for how many people it sends to the U.S. Congress.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 03:00 PM (fuK7c)

58 Maximizing Your Victimhood 101
Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 02:54 PM (gC2IV)

And that's in a calculus class. First differentiate your victimhood, set the derivative to zero, then differentiate it again to determine whether the extremum is a minimum or a maximum. Because Gaia knows you don't want inadvertently to minimize your victimhood.

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at June 23, 2019 03:01 PM (kfdLC)

59 42: Blue states would be thrilled to make them citizens, I don't think this slavery comparison is helpful.

Posted by: CN at June 23, 2019 03:02 PM (U7k5w)

60 Just ask a recent college graduate about the three-fifths compromise?

Let's start with Oberlin's class of 2019. Or Harvard's.

LOL

Posted by: Les Kinetic at June 23, 2019 03:02 PM (4ZE6o)

61 The lesser known 1/5 compromise estabished whiskey measurements .
Posted by: Can't resist temptation at June 23, 2019 02:49 PM

That was the Whiskey Rebellion that GW put down. I had a relative jailed for that.

Posted by: Skip at June 23, 2019 03:02 PM (BbGew)

62 From a site on the internet.

California could lose a seat in the House of Representatives and some
Congressional districts could lose population if the millions of illegal
immigrants living in the state, which has the largest number of illegal
immigrants by far, aren't counted in the 2020 census.

https://tinyurl.com/y39kpxdj

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 03:02 PM (mpXpK)

63 You know what I don't know much about? The Articles of Confederation.

We laud our founders as the cream of the Enlightenment, but they fucked it up before they got it right.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 02:57 PM (fuK

It was actually an argument /example against a weak central government and limitless state sovereignty. Unfortunately the pendulum swung too far toward Federal power.

Posted by: Can't resist temptation at June 23, 2019 03:02 PM (2DOZq)

64 I'd compromise on an 19 year old for an 18 year old..do I have an AMEN......oops I am not a congress critter...
so can we split the difference and have a few males and LBQWERTYUIOP 's too ......

Posted by: saf at June 23, 2019 03:03 PM (5IHGB)

65 I must have learned about the 3/5 when I was in high school. U.S History? Civics? One of those.
=====

No such thing any more. Social Studies is the proper term for indoctrination.

Posted by: mustbequantum at June 23, 2019 03:03 PM (MIKMs)

66 interesting. this explains the reason illegals should be counted (as among "all persons"), which i didn't think was justified. but there is still good reason to include the citizenship question as it adds a bit of important datum (how many citizens) among a lot of other data collected in the census.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:03 PM (Pg+x7)

67 CA makes its own rules for a LOT of shit.

Posted by: Vic at June 23, 2019 03:03 PM (mpXpK)

68 I am pretty sure that California does not get to make its own rules for how many people it sends to the U.S. Congress.

I don't think so either. But I seem to recall Glorious People's Republik of Kaleefornia making some sort of argument for that not too long ago. They want power and will break the law (and/or Legal Intent and Principle) in order to gain it BAMN.
Rush has mentioned several times that the Progs' master plan is to let in a bunch of illegals, then give them voting rights because "fairness." Bad idea.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 03:04 PM (HaL55)

69 I'm a foreigner and I know the 3/5s compromise history although I have spent the past 20 years reading conservative blogs and magazine websites.

Posted by: andycanuck at June 23, 2019 03:05 PM (Dh1wo)

70 ... this is a good video, but not supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:05 PM (Pg+x7)

71 49 CA already counts illegals for the purpose setting the number of legislators.

But that's just for the State House, right? I don't think they've changed the number of DC reps, but I think they want to for that reason.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 02:57 PM (HaL55)

Actually, yes, illegals count towards the number of reps a state gets in the US House and always has.

This is because the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that the Census, for purposes of apportionment, shall count the whole number of PERSONS, not the number of citizens. (excluding Indians not taxed, but that situation was addressed in later legislation)

So yes, the more illegals a state has, the more they are rewarded in representation - it's in the Constitution, for now. Why the Democrats are scared about asking the question is the census is that they worry that Illegals will think answering the question will lead to them being identified and deported, and thus they will hide from the census, and thus California and New York's official population for reapportionment purposes will be lower than it would be if all the illegals happily identified themselves.

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:06 PM (V2Yro)

72 If citizenship can't be asked on the census, what's the justification for all the rest of the questions?

Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 03:07 PM (gC2IV)

73 From a site on the internet.

Authoritative.

California does not set its own rules. Illegals are currently counted everywhere for apportionment.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 03:07 PM (fuK7c)

74 well done video

Posted by: booknlass at June 23, 2019 03:08 PM (xIKXj)

75 If they steal representation in Congress, they also steal Electoral votes, since they are equal. The idea they can pull some sanctuary bullshit and steal power from citizens is pure criminal.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at June 23, 2019 03:09 PM (oVJmc)

76 If citizenship can't be asked on the census, what's the justification for all the rest of the questions?
Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 03:07 PM (gC2IV)

Money.

Who gets what from you know who to buy more votes.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at June 23, 2019 03:09 PM (Z+IKu)

77 73 It's all baked into the plot for the popular vote scam

Posted by: Skip at June 23, 2019 03:09 PM (BbGew)

78 68 I am pretty sure that California does not get to make its own rules for how many people it sends to the U.S. Congress.

I don't think so either. But I seem to recall Glorious People's Republik of Kaleefornia making some sort of argument for that not too long ago. They want power and will break the law (and/or Legal Intent and Principle) in order to gain it BAMN.
Rush has mentioned several times that the Progs' master plan is to let in a bunch of illegals, then give them voting rights because "fairness." Bad idea.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 03:04 PM (HaL55)

This is exactly why they want to eliminate the electoral college.

Posted by: Infidel at June 23, 2019 03:10 PM (xzK3J)

79 66 interesting. this explains the reason illegals should be counted (as among "all persons"), which i didn't think was justified.

There's a couple hundred years of court precedents that have held that a "person" for the purposes of the census is anyone who is living and breathing and physically present in this country.

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:10 PM (V2Yro)

80 72 If citizenship can't be asked on the census, what's the justification for all the rest of the questions?
Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 03:07 PM (gC2IV)

I think one of the Supreme Court Justices asked that question during oral arguments.

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:11 PM (V2Yro)

81 ... if all the illegals in the u.s. were concentrated in wyoming, should wyoming have more than 1 representative in the house?

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:12 PM (Pg+x7)

82 When Trump wins in a landslide in 2020, the prog talking point will shift from the electoral college to "the tyranny of the majority." Bank it.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 03:12 PM (gC2IV)

83 Illegal Aliens !!! COME AGAIN

....... why not SPACE IS A VACUUM...A.k.a fill it with whatever....

Posted by: saf at June 23, 2019 03:14 PM (5IHGB)

84 ... (p.s. i think i have answered 1 census form in my life.)

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:14 PM (Pg+x7)

85 We were taught this in my 7th grade American History class..

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at June 23, 2019 03:15 PM (kQs4Y)

86 Posted by: saf at June 23, 2019 03:14 PM (5IHGB)

-----------

You live in Denver, don't you?

Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 03:15 PM (gC2IV)

87 When Trump wins in a landslide in 2020, the prog talking point will shift from the electoral college to "the tyranny of the majority." Bank it.
Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 03:12 PM (gC2IV)

Noted.

May their popular vote referenda blow their own feet off first, though.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 03:15 PM (t+qrx)

88 honestly ^^^ ?

Posted by: saf at June 23, 2019 03:16 PM (5IHGB)

89 81 ... if all the illegals in the u.s. were concentrated in wyoming, should wyoming have more than 1 representative in the house?
Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:12 PM (Pg+x7)

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, in plain and clear language, says Yes.

to answer another question you haven't asked yet - if a mythical district in Wyoming had 1,000,000 illegals who could not vote, and only 1 American Citizen in it who could vote, that Citizen could vote for himself as Congressmen and he would win, 1-0.

Just remember this whenever anyone says that the Constitution doesn't have any mistakes in it. It does, and this is one of the big ones. But the only way to change is through another Amendment - maybe that would be a good time to clear up what "natural born citizen" actually means, as well.

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:16 PM (V2Yro)

90 Snowed in CO today.

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 03:17 PM (CFSlN)

91 We really need to DO SOMETHING! about 1858 AD.

Posted by: Burger Chef at June 23, 2019 03:18 PM (RuIsu)

92 ... i was under the impression that lib states wanted open borders so that the illegals will become citizens and vote for democrats. but now i see that just having more "persons" in their sanctuary states means they get more representatives, citizenship or not. interesting.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:19 PM (Pg+x7)

93 We really need to DO SOMETHING! about 1858 AD.

Gregorian or Julian?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 03:19 PM (fuK7c)

94 [... but still not supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.]

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:19 PM (Pg+x7)

95 But I don't wanna.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 02:55 PM (fuK7c)

Afraid you'll have to run to the dictionary?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 23, 2019 03:19 PM (wYseH)

96 That WWII Muslim heroine is legit: Noor Inayat Khan. Sufi Muslim family.

Posted by: butch at June 23, 2019 03:20 PM (0APJ3)

97 >>>Just remember this whenever anyone says that the Constitution doesn't have any mistakes in it. It does, and this is one of the big ones. But the only way to change is through another Amendment - maybe that would be a good time to clear up what "natural born citizen" actually means, as well.

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:16 PM (V2Yro)

The Constitution is not a mistake. It's provisions allow for amendments. The founding fathers never intended for non-citizens to be allowed to vote.

Democrats are adulterers.

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 03:21 PM (CFSlN)

98 Afraid you'll have to run to the dictionary?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

That or the fact that Vimeo doesn't have a play at higher speed option.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 23, 2019 03:22 PM (DrqHq)

99 There's a couple hundred years of court precedents that have held that a
"person" for the purposes of the census is anyone who is living and
breathing and physically present in this country.

We also have the right to alter our government as time and situations change. LFoD's video 'splains the reasoning for the usage of that particular word: westward expansion.

Today things have changed. I doubt the Founders could've anticipated that our immigration laws would be ignored and we'd be flooded with criminal alien invaders who refused to obey our laws or assimilate.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 03:23 PM (HaL55)

100 Oh, aye! - "That Yorkshire Sound":

https://vimeo.com/channels/staffpicks /342692141?from=outro-embed

"A hand drawn animated documentary, following the rhythms of a day in Yorkshire. It captures the sound of Yorkshire, from it's multicultural and bustling cities like Bradford and Sheffield, to the delicate sounds of birds in the country side and the hypnotic rhythm of the motorways and train tracks."

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at June 23, 2019 03:23 PM (kQs4Y)

101 The guy's delivery is (literally!) monotonous.

If you're going to spend five minutes telling me stuff that's obvious you should at least tart it up with interesting turns of phrase, a passionate delivery, and best case a braless spokesbabe.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 03:24 PM (fuK7c)

102 Braless Spokesbabe would be a good name for a punk rock band.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at June 23, 2019 03:26 PM (gC2IV)

103 If you're going to spend five minutes telling me stuff that's obvious you should at least tart it up with interesting turns of phrase, a passionate delivery, and best case a braless spokesbabe.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 03:24 PM (fuK7c)

I would've appreciated an adorable kitten or two, while we're at it.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 03:27 PM (t+qrx)

104 At least it wasn't a Power Point presentation.

Posted by: OldDominionMom at June 23, 2019 03:27 PM (t0Z53)

105 The video was well done and if edited down to just the explanation of the original compromise would be an excellent teaching aid.

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 03:27 PM (CFSlN)

106 Today things have changed. I doubt the Founders could've anticipated that our immigration laws would be ignored and we'd be flooded with criminal alien invaders who refused to obey our laws or assimilate.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 03:23 PM (HaL55)

If the Founder's had been hit with as much as 10% of the population being here illegally?

They would have called it an invasion, and called out the militia.

Posted by: Don Q at June 23, 2019 03:27 PM (NgKpN)

107 They'd be cool with citizenship and voting. They win either way.

Posted by: CN at June 23, 2019 03:28 PM (U7k5w)

108 I knew Prager U. had to have a video on the 3/5 Compromise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giBRnKRWR6M

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at June 23, 2019 03:29 PM (kQs4Y)

109 ... tom servo knows from whence he speaks from.

well done.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:29 PM (Pg+x7)

110 What was that project management software that had the impressive spokeswoman? She could read about the three fifths compromise, I'm sure.

Posted by: blaster at June 23, 2019 03:32 PM (ZfRYq)

111 This is exactly why they want to eliminate the electoral college.
Posted by: Infidel at June 23, 2019 03:10 PM (xzK3J)

Hmmm, actually, that could be an avenue for attack.

The Electoral College gets its number of votes by how many Senators and Representatives each State has.

If say, California has a few million illegals, which are then counted to give the amount of Representatives, then VOTERS in California proportionally have MORE power then Voters in States with LESS illegal immigrants.

The electoral college votes then give more power if you have more illegals.

Posted by: Don Q at June 23, 2019 03:32 PM (NgKpN)

112 Why aren't the Mesoamericans considered to be "Indians not taxed"?

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2019 03:32 PM (yQpMk)

113 so the consensus here is that the court will hold that in this case the letter, and not the clear intent and logic and common sense, of the constitution will be adhered to, such that states defying federal law and subverting the federal authority to enforce borders/entry will be rewarded with more power at the federal level? Thus, it appears, the constitution is very much a suicide pact.

Meanwhile, the "speed bump, not change of direction" side picks up big mo with the actual execution of policy to restore rule of law on borders and sovereignty. Dan Horowitz sums up a lot of the latest situation nicely:

"in this administration is a bunch of people who [say that] lawless regulations from previous admins that go against statute are somehow the law and that we need a new law to follow the law"

Posted by: rhomboid at June 23, 2019 03:33 PM (QDnY+)

114 108 I knew Prager U. had to have a video on the 3/5 Compromise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giBRnKRWR6M

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at June 23, 2019 03:29 PM (kQs4Y)
---------------------------

Note that it uses the term "free whites" for both slave states and free states.

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 03:35 PM (CFSlN)

115 Day Three of a modified fast. My calorie intake for the day consists of a tea in the morning, fortified with 1.5 tsp of kerrygold butter, 1.5 tsp of organic unrefined coconut oil, and 1/3 cup of heavy cream - total of about 500-calories. Lots of liquids consisting of unsweetened iced tea and green tea and 1-2 coke zeros. Big, complete multivitamin with the tea.

Total for the day therefore should be around 500-cal, with almost all of it save 2-3 g of carbs and 3-4 g of protein being fat.

Went hiking with the family yesterday and again for a short one this morning. Otherwise only modestly active.

Overall, the experience is positive so far. Hoping to keep it up through my physical Wednesday morning.

Posted by: DocJ at June 23, 2019 03:35 PM (fF3XF)

116 ... but it raises an interesting paradox: if 20 million illegals lived in one wyoming district with only one citizen it would be apportioned more reps than there are voting citizens.

Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:36 PM (Pg+x7)

117 START with the DACA List.

Deport any/all DACA and DACA Family Illegals.

Just to remind the rest of the country why Governmental Lists / Registries are a BAD idea.

Posted by: garrett at June 23, 2019 03:36 PM (M1n0C)

118 I must have learned about the 3/5 when I was in high school. U.S History? Civics? One of those.
=====

No such thing any more. Social Studies is the proper term for indoctrination.

Posted by: mustbequantum at June 23, 2019 03:03 PM (MIKMs)

At almost 29, I am aold enough to have had to take a mandated course in High School called "Americanism vs Communism".

Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2019 03:37 PM (yQpMk)

119 I knew Prager U. had to have a video on the 3/5 Compromise:

I like that one.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 23, 2019 03:38 PM (fuK7c)

120 116 ... but it raises an interesting paradox: if 20 million illegals lived in one wyoming district with only one citizen it would be apportioned more reps than there are voting citizens.
Posted by: musical jolly chimp at June 23, 2019 03:36 PM (Pg+x7)

In British history, it's the same issue that they had to face with the so-called "Rotten Boroughs". By the early 19th century, there were Parliamentary districts established by tradition and ancient law that had as few as 6 voters, total. It became quite easy for wealthy men to buy themselves seats in Parliament; some were known to have bought several, and they placed their loyal disciplines in the seats they owned.

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:39 PM (V2Yro)

121 Why aren't the Mesoamericans considered to be "Indians not taxed"?
Posted by: Grump928(C) at June 23, 2019 03:32 PM (yQpMk)

An excellent point, since "Indians not taxed" referred to citizens of actual sovereign nations that were distinct from the United States. But you'd have to change "Indians" to "aliens" anyway, so it's more logical to alter "persons" to "citizens" and it resolves any ambiguity.

I am aware that "resolving ambiguity" is not the goal of the enemy and is contrary to their intentions.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 23, 2019 03:39 PM (t+qrx)

122
If say, California has a few million illegals, which are then counted to give the amount of Representatives, then VOTERS in California proportionally have MORE power then Voters in States with LESS illegal immigrants.

The electoral college votes then give more power if you have more illegals.

Posted by: Don Q at June 23, 2019 03:32 PM (NgKpN)

I hadn't thought of that angle. I was more alluding to the popular vote. Interesting.

either way, deport, deport, deport.

Posted by: Infidel at June 23, 2019 03:40 PM (xzK3J)

123 "Thus, it appears, the constitution is very much a suicide pact."

In defense of the Constitution and those who wrote it, I must say that they never imagined a situation where we would just allow several million illegal aliens to live here and not do anything at all about it.

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:41 PM (V2Yro)

124 If existing laws had been enforced there would be no constitutional crisis.

We are having a crisis because Democrats are adulterers.

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 03:43 PM (CFSlN)

125 Nope, NO compromise. Get the fuck out. Period.

Posted by: deadrody at June 23, 2019 03:43 PM (o+um5)

126 I read earlier today that the rounding up of illegals was scrubbed (for now) because there was a rat fink.

Posted by: JAS at June 23, 2019 03:44 PM (I5SAg)

127 I wish I was 3/5 injun.

Posted by: Lieawatha at June 23, 2019 03:45 PM (EgshT)

128 Back from short bike ride, warm but fantastic day

Posted by: Skip at June 23, 2019 03:46 PM (BbGew)

129 An excellent point, since "Indians not taxed" referred to citizens of actual sovereign nations that were distinct from the United States. But you'd have to change "Indians" to "aliens" anyway, so it's more logical to alter "persons" to "citizens" and it resolves any ambiguity. "

For most of the 19th Century, the US maintained the legal fiction that the Indian Reservations were "sovereign nations" inside the US, and that no one who lived on them was to be considered an actual US citizen. That system fell apart for obvious reasons. In 1920 (iirc) Congress passed a huge bill that completely rewrote and reestablished the status of American Indian descendants and those who live on Reservations.

So, all those references to Indians not counted is moot now, it's rather like the 3/5 issue, an historical curiosity.

(I would have thought that changing the Status of American Indians would have required an Amendment, but for 100 years now everyone, especially the Supreme Court, has accepted that the Congressional rewrite of everything was good enough).

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:47 PM (V2Yro)

130 "They wanted to count their slaves for the purpose of representation, but didn't want to give any representation to their slaves" is a great quote from the Prager video.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, She-Wolf of the 'Ettes 'Ettes at June 23, 2019 03:49 PM (kQs4Y)

131 Gotta help B'Gal, bbl

Posted by: BackwardsBoy - #Progressivism=Socialism at June 23, 2019 03:49 PM (HaL55)

132 >>>(I would have thought that changing the Status of American Indians would have required an Amendment, but for 100 years now everyone, especially the Supreme Court, has accepted that the Congressional rewrite of everything was good enough).

Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:47 PM (V2Yro)
---

Back then the term *common sense* meant something?

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 03:52 PM (CFSlN)

133 "You were 3/5ths of a man for representation in The House of Representatives. You were 0% of a man in terms of being able to vote."
-Me

Posted by: JAS at June 23, 2019 03:55 PM (I5SAg)

134 Persons means persons legally here. You would not count an occupying army as persons. It's absurd to count illegal aliens as persons for apportionment.

Posted by: Locke Common at June 23, 2019 03:55 PM (XqhGj)

135 tom servo, and Billy Cole, both absolutely correct, no argument on those points. Tom, rephrase my remark thusly: "in effect, given the ridiculous situation, it turns out the constitution can be, in fact, a suicide pact".

On scrubbed ICE round-up - there is strong but not dispositive reporting that operation was blown by current DHS acting chief. Obviously this guy cannot continue in his post if this is true - or maybe even if not proven/admitted - Trump's key migration/borders policies are already a trainwreck*, and lack of confidence in key personnel has bedeviled the admin from the outset. If this matter is not conclusively clarified, quickly, I think Trump has really entered into his first truly dangerous political terrain.

* many moving parts, but as Trump himself would insist, results are all that counts - and as of now results are horrible: massive increase in illegals, whole new pernicious mechanisms/dynamics e.g. officially facilitated mass illegal family unit entry, and galloping erosion in rule of law and executive authority thru compliance [now apparently even becoming pre-emptive surrender] with lawfare and lawless courts

Posted by: rhomboid at June 23, 2019 03:55 PM (QDnY+)

136 the SCOTUS decision decided that all people (including illegals) had to be "cared for" by the state (iirc). But I don't think it has been determined that illegals should be counted at all for apportionment of representatives.

From first listen, it seems this video above says we do have to count them for apportionment (of reps) ... but we need to know how many are here illegally. But imo since they are indeed different than slaves (uninvited, unwanted, not ours, refuse to leave even when ordered by court) ... they are only a burden to states that have a lot of them ... and the burden is on the state to care for them, especially when states/cities "go to war" against the federal government on removal.

Slaves were here legally, but were productive on their own. Illegals ... are foreign nationals, send our money home, are used to take money/power from US citizens in other states/cities. They have their own government representatives ... in their home country, where they send remittances.

Count them to examine the problem, but they should not count for government apportionment of reps. They vote and are represented by Mexico (or whatever country). They are enemy armies, really.

Posted by: illiniwek at June 23, 2019 03:57 PM (Cus5s)

137 FOOD NOOD

Posted by: Skip at June 23, 2019 04:01 PM (BbGew)

138 Fish again

Posted by: Skip at June 23, 2019 04:01 PM (BbGew)

139 135, I have this niggling feeling JarVanka are behind this.

Posted by: Infidel at June 23, 2019 04:02 PM (xzK3J)

140 >>>...But imo since they are indeed different than slaves (uninvited, unwanted, not ours, refuse to leave even when ordered by court) ... they are only a burden to states that have a lot of them ... and the burden is on the state to care for them, especially when states/cities "go to war" against the federal government on removal. ...

Posted by: illiniwek at June 23, 2019 03:57 PM (Cus5s)
--------

Invasion

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 04:05 PM (CFSlN)

141 And the GOP situation on the slow-motion collapse of Trump's central policy promise is getting exactly as bad as you'd expect when Trump and the voters just don't seem to care about how they behave and impose Zero costs on them.

The GOP senator from f***ing ALABAMA has overseen a disastrous emergency $$$ bill for border matters that would represent serious erosion in the situation, further energize the illegal migration magnet instead of dampening it, and has sat mute while his Dem colleagues, notwithstanding all this, still slander and lie and demonize the supposed icky GOP immigration stance.

Things are actually very bad.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 23, 2019 04:05 PM (QDnY+)

142 I would be impressed if a recent graduate knew what 3/5 is. Fractions be, like, hard.

Posted by: Anchovy at June 23, 2019 04:08 PM (srWwQ)

143

This week's big leak about a major Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation was orchestrated by acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan in an effort to sabotage the raids before they were scheduled to take place, according to three current and two former senior administration officials.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at June 23, 2019 04:09 PM (aKsyK)

144 Backing up the "invading armies of foreign nationals" language, the Mexican government issues pamphlets on how they are to penetrate our laws (with subterfuge) and to continue to speak Spanish and maintain their Mexican national identity, and send remittances (loot, bounty) back home (to families in Mexico).

Posted by: illiniwek at June 23, 2019 04:14 PM (Cus5s)

145 Leak?

Here's former ICE Tom Homan going off on sanctuary city mayors and going off on DHS (2:39), Kevin McAleenan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kltLRpXhXww

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 04:29 PM (CFSlN)

146 So, how many airbnb units in CA? Does the census taker drp off a form at each dwelling? If filled out and returned, are they counted?

How would the census bureau know if it's statistically an issue without a legal residency question?

Does tourism skew counts in places like NYC, Boston, Miami, LA?

I realize a congressional district is about 700,000 persons. Would a few hundred thousand visitors in airbnb during a census year in LA and SF give CA an extra seat ? Two?

Posted by: dbaiseb at June 23, 2019 04:41 PM (fZZk/)

147 There's a couple hundred years of court precedents that have held that a "person" for the purposes of the census is anyone who is living and breathing and physically present in this country.
Posted by: tom servo at June 23, 2019 03:10 PM (V2Yro)

Certain details have obviously been worked out -
- they are counted wherever they happen to be when they get a census form, So, a person who normally resides in NY 9 months a years gets form while physically in NY can be counted there, and if they just happen to also get a form while snowbirding in Florida they get counted there, and finally they jet off to Hawaii and get a form in the hotel / condo they rented they get counted there too.

No discussion of legal residence, domicile or state they are a citizen of needed.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at June 23, 2019 04:45 PM (1g7ch)

148 If one shops Bezosabub for a sport jacket or a light sport jacket he is shown men's apparel.

If one shops for a full or full cut sport jacket he is shown women's apparel.

If you have a gut shop somewhere else.

Posted by: Billy Cole at June 23, 2019 04:53 PM (CFSlN)

149 Persons means persons legally here. You would not count an occupying army as persons. It's absurd to count illegal aliens as persons for apportionment.
Posted by: Locke Common at June 23, 2019 03:55 PM (XqhGj)

Nope. Supreme Court says count all persons. Count all persons. Legal residence and/or citizenship is irrelevant.
Supreme Court is law of the land.*

*All who took the oath to uphold the Supreme Court already know that.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at June 23, 2019 04:59 PM (1g7ch)

150 As all here know, the 3/5ths clause is an anti-slavery provision. That said, today our elites view us as 3/5ths of a citizen and foreigners as whole citizens.

Jefferson liked the French, Adams liked the British and Franklin liked both, but they would all be shocked to see a government that prefers foreigners to its own citizens. For them, Open Borders are a solution, not a problem. You are their problem.

The Social Justice crowd aren't mad at Jefferson because he owned slaves. They're mad at him because he said "All men are created equal".

They do not believe you and I are their equals. They believe we are Deplorables and Irredeemables whose elections may be rigged, whose candidates may be framed and who may be ethnically-cleansed out of our own country.

That is why they support vote fraud, dissolving our borders, judicial putsches, rule by decree of the Perma-Blob and Police State Coups.

They are themselves Supremacists, just as surely as any wild-eyed mullah or toothless Klan cracker they claim to oppose; Social Justice Supremacists.

They aren't mad because Jefferson had slaves--they're mad because we refuse be their slaves.

Posted by: The Gipper Lives at June 23, 2019 05:22 PM (Ndje9)

151 "They are themselves Supremacists, just as surely as any wild-eyed mullah
or toothless Klan cracker they claim to oppose; Social Justice
Supremacists. They aren't mad because Jefferson had slaves--they're mad because we refuse be their slaves."

why ... that's outrageous ... and true.

They are not fair or smart, they get their (fake) supremacy by declaring it loudly and repeatedly .... the hate is strong with them. And it is that hate (of the common enemy set by Narrative) that unites them, till they learn to also hate each other, e.g. trans faction on lesbian faction action.

Posted by: illiniwek at June 23, 2019 06:05 PM (Cus5s)

152 what a crock of shit.

Posted by: E. Stan Bull at June 23, 2019 07:08 PM (B+t5k)

153 Nope. Supreme Court says count all persons. Count all persons. Legal residence and/or citizenship is irrelevant.
Supreme Court is law of the land.*

So the Nazi saboteurs who landed on Long Island and in Florida during WWII should have been counted and represented?

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at June 23, 2019 07:16 PM (NRi/V)

154 We could plan an extended visit to the U.S. every 2 or 4 years, register to vote as undocumenteds. Change for the better, komrads!

Posted by: Citizens of the World at June 23, 2019 08:42 PM (zUpMx)

155 17 Has Joshua Davenport gotten any death threats yet from the loving, tolerant and inclusive left?

No, not yet. Apparently I'm not effective enough to bother with ;-)

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 24, 2019 06:19 PM (H9lUe)

156 81 ... if all the illegals in the u.s. were concentrated in wyoming, should wyoming have more than 1 representative in the house?

Wyoming would have somewhere between 14 and 33 Representatives. Not sure exactly how many because the number of illegal aliens isn't that well known.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 24, 2019 06:34 PM (H9lUe)

157 101 The guy's delivery is (literally!) monotonous.

If you're going to spend five minutes telling me stuff that's obvious you should at least tart it up with interesting turns of phrase, a passionate delivery, and best case a braless spokesbabe.

I kind of agree but its intentional (or rather, I wasn't sure how else to do it.). Low information voters are the target audience. If I can get them to watch until the light bulb goes off, then it will work. In no way should it come across as partisan or mean or aggressive.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 24, 2019 06:39 PM (H9lUe)

158 122
If say, California has a few million illegals, which are then counted to give the amount of Representatives, then VOTERS in California proportionally have MORE power then Voters in States with LESS illegal immigrants.

Yeah, If illegal aliens are concentrated in non-competitive states, there really is a disincentive to making them citizens.
1) Get more reps in congress
2) Get more reps per voter
3) Non-competitive, so reps stay in the party
4) Get federal welfare dollars, which is increased by illegals, but the illegals can't vote you out if you steal it all and just reward the voters

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 24, 2019 06:47 PM (H9lUe)

159 Thanks everyone for the feedback. Love this blog

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 24, 2019 06:47 PM (H9lUe)

160 To be clear, I mean the 3/5 part is for low info voters. Most people have never thought about the apportionment issue

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at June 24, 2019 08:57 PM (H9lUe)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0281 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0124 seconds, 169 records returned.
Page size 95 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.