|
 |  Salt Lake Tribune -
Nov-06-2009Bennett's census-immigration amendment rejected(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
- "I think there is no reasonable comparison and I ask Sen. Reid to apologize to me for that outrageous statement.'' (More...)
- It is the members of the republican party who have shredded the constitution, attempting to establish a state religion in this nation, violating the first fourth and fifth amendments by limiting freedom of speach, the right to a speedy trial, the right to know charges leading to imprisionment, denying the right to legal representation, lieing to to congress, and the list goes on and on. (More...)
- The Senate has blocked an attempt to skew the next census in favor of states that do not have large immigrant populations. (More...)
- Sen. Vitter argued that counting everyone, citizen and noncitizen alike in congressional reapportionment, was "contrary to the whole intent of the Constitution and the establishment of Congress as a democratic institution to represent citizens." (More...)
- Just because you want to back a Democratic Party full of tax cheats, queers, black panther thugs, an ex-president clinton who screwed everything that wasn't nailed down and a president who has zero leadership ability you want to call David Vitter names. (More...)
- We can't do that unless we know whether or not we are counting actual U.S. citizens. (More...)
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
"I think there is no reasonable comparison and I ask Sen. Reid to apologize to me for that outrageous statement.'' Responding to Vitter, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who was guiding the appropriations bill to passage, told Vitter that "the time to stand up was in April 2007,'' when she said questions for the 2010 census were being vetted by Congress. Mikulski echoed Census Bureau warnings that adding a question at this late date would wreck plans for a timely Census and be hugely expensive. Vitter said that he agreed that the Homeland Security Committee should have paid more attention to the Census questions when they had the chance, but scoffed at the bureau's cost estimates. After the vote, Vitter said,"I am disappointed that my colleagues in the Senate chose to block this commonsense amendment that could prevent Louisiana and several other states from losing a congressional seat following the 2010 census. [1] Census data is used to determine the number of House seats each state gets as well as the distribution of billions of dollars in federal money. Vitter has said he wants to exclude noncitizens from the census, arguing that several states ' including Louisiana ' will unfairly lose House seats. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat and the spending bill's floor manager, said Vitter had his chance to speak out about the questions last April, when the Census Bureau submitted them to Congress. 'It didn't come in the stealth of the night. It wasn't written in invisible ink,' she said. The Commerce Department, which runs the Census Bureau, has said that adding a question this late would cost millions of dollars and create problems with the count.[2] The Census Bureau objected to the cost of reprinting more than 600 million forms. It is also a matter of political power. By omitting noncitizens, the census would favor states such as Mr. Vitter's Louisiana, which stands to lose one of its seven House seats. If his proposal went through, Sen. Vitter said Louisiana and eight other states would keep or gain congressional representation.[3]
Gallot did not mention U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., by name, but Vitter has said Louisiana, which has a relatively small illegal-immigrant population, could lose a congressional seat at the expense of other states that have more illegal immigrants if illegal immigrants are counted. "It saddens me that we have individuals who have attempted to bring up this very divisive issue and somehow suggest that there is something new going on under this Obama Census Bureau, that they're somehow going to conduct this census in a way that is inconsistent with what's always been done," Gallot said. "It's the same census process that's been used before. To suggest that there needs to be an exclusion of the illegal immigrants and that kind of thing has really put a very divisive issue in this process that really, in the end, will not serve any meaningful purpose. For those who continue to use their positions to further themselves, I hope that at some point they would be more honest with the public when they're making these statements. It just saddens me that people will use these types of issues to further their political or public exposure."[4] Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) which would have caused major changes in the way the Congressional map will be drawn after the next census. Vitter's proposal would have required the U.S. Census Bureau to identify non-citizens and exclude them from the count which determines how congressional districts will be apportioned among the state. It would probably have saved Louisiana from the loss of one congressional seat, while resulting in the loss of several seats for larger states like California and Texas.[5]
WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Thursday voted to block an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would have required the U.S. Census Bureau to identify non-citizens in next year's count.[6] Gallot said the issue about illegal immigrants and the census is a distraction. "To suggest that this is something new under a black president is dishonest and it's misleading," Gallot said. "We've got so many important, legitimate issues to deal with, to throw such a ridiculous claim out there distracts us from the real serious business that we have to take care of." The Census Bureau has said it will count everybody, regardless of their citizenship status, based on where they are on April 1, 2010. U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, R-La., said last week in a prepared statement that she would not join Vitter in holding up a spending bill to force a vote on an amendment requiring that respondents to next year's census be asked whether they are American citizens.[4] Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, previously a champion of immigration reform, did not vote. After the vote, Bennett charged that Democratic leaders moved to side-step his amendment because "the majority wants to have illegal residents included in the apportionment count so that states like California and New York can gain more congressional seats." He promised to continue to push for a citizenship question on the census in future years, "so we can fairly determine congressional representation and ensure that legal residents are equally represented." Bennett's amendment, which he offered with Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, didn't sit well with census officials and some immigration groups.[7] The Senate on Thursday killed Sen. David Vitter's bid to require the 2010 census to ask all respondents about their citizenship. It came on a party-line 60-39 vote to end debate on a spending bill without having to consider the Louisiana Republican's amendment. Daniel Erath, The Times-Picayune Sen. David Vitter said he took 'personal offense' at suggestions that his amendment was anti-immigrant.[8] Sen. David Vitter's bid to require the 2010 Census to ask all respondents about their citizenship was killed today when the Senate voted to invoke cloture and end debate on the Commerce spending bill without having to consider the Louisiana Republican's amendment.[1]
The amendment, offered by Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, would have barred federal money from being used on a census without a citizenship question. It was one of a number of amendments that had been holding up passage of a must-pass spending bill funding the Commerce and Justice departments as well as science programs.[2]
The U.S. Senate killed Sen. David Vitter's attempt to require the 2010 Census to insert an amendment denying all funding in a Commerce funding bill unless it included a question regarding the status of U.S. citizenship. The amendment in question said, "To provide that none of the funds made available in this Act may be used for collection of census data that does not include a question regarding status of United States citizenship."[9] The Senate voted 60 to 39 Thursday to block the amendment by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Robert Bennett (R-Utah) to require 2010 census takers to ask respondents if they are U.S. citizens.[10]
States with large immigrant populations, like Texas and California, stand to pick up seats with the current counting method in place. Vitter said he is disappointed by the Senate vote to prevent amendments, including his own, from even being considered. "The census is important - but so is gathering accurate data and we can't do that unless we know whether or not we are counting actual U.S. citizens," he said. "My amendment would have helped us do just that - it's a shame that so many of my colleagues chose to ignore that." By agreeing not to take up the Vitter amendment, senators successfully avoided an issue that has become the source of a vicious proxy fight over illegal immigration and a preview of the anger, animosity and legal challenges that await the larger battle over comprehensive immigration reform that President Obama has said he'll eventually bring forward.[10] Vitter reasoned the question was necessary because states with higher immigrant populations would benefit from a simple head count. Population is used to decide how many House members a state has, its electoral delegates for the presidential vote and, in many cases, the amount of federal funding a state receives. After noncitizens are calculated, they could be removed from the population assessment process, Vitter said. The current method of counting would guarantee that Louisiana will lose one of its seven House seats when reapportionment happens next year, Vitter said. States such as California and Texas would benefit due to their higher immigrant populations, he said. Though he didn't mention Landrieu by name, Vitter expressed disappointment at the vote, which he said was orchestrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada.[6] If Vitter were successful — and if non-citizens were excluded from the census count for congressional apportionment — states with fewer immigrants would fare significantly better in the upcoming allocation of House seats. States such as California and Texas would fare worse than they would under the current way of allocating seats, which under the Constitution is based on the "whole number of persons" residing in a state. Louisiana stands to lose one of its seven House seats in the upcoming round of reapportionment.[11]
Vitter said that the census as currently designed would cause Louisiana a seat in the House of Representatives since Louisiana has a low illegal alien population whereas other states had a larger population. The Department of Census told Bayoubuzz that to change the census at this juncture could cost billions. Supporters of Vitter's amendment have been concerned that states such as Louisiana and others would representatives. Many of those supporters were from states which might lose a representative or more.[9] Vitter's last-minute proposal ' census questionnaires, which are scheduled to be sent out in the spring, have already been printed ' is the latest in the political right's increasingly absurdist 'fight' against illegal immigration. I put 'fight' in quotes because these tactics actually do nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Other than deprive the country's three most populous states of more congressional seats, Vitter's amendment would simply continue the restrictionists' strategy of pretending illegal immigration can be solved by depriving people of basic rights or, in this case, refusing to acknowledge their existence. In 21st-century America, most fair-minded people know that it's simply not cool to judge large groups of people as inherently inferior or immoral based on race or cultural practices. In this multicult i era, even fanatics will avoid being called racists. That's the beauty of taking a strong position against 'illegals.' That brand is good cover for fanaticism.[12] Bennett's amendment would have no bearing on federal assistance and the immigration information would not be used by law enforcement to find people in the country illegally. He said his sole purpose was to remove non-citizens from the counts used to determine U.S. House representation. "It does not make any sense for congressional seats and the Electoral College to be determined by a process that unfairly provides the advantage to those communities with high illegal populations," Bennett said in September when announcing his proposal.[7]
"The 2010 census remains on track and on schedule, and we're moving forward to ensure we have an accurate count in 2010." Critics also said that it's long been settled law that the apportionment of congressional seats is determined by the number of people living in each state, whether or not they are citizens.[11] Critics said Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive. They also said that it's long been settled law that the apportionment of congressional seats is determined by the number of people living in each state, regardless of whether they are citizens.[11]
In a blatant betrayal of their actual constituents, Democrats have forced the U.S. Census Bureau to include illegal immigrants when determining the number of congressional representatives in each state. States with dense populations of illegal immigrants (Democrat voters) will get additional representatives in Congress that they shouldn't have.[13] Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has introduced legislation that, if passed, would instruct the U.S. Census Bureau not to take into account illegal immigrants and other noncitizens in the 2010 census.[12] Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, advanced a plan to prevent the Census Bureau from counting noncitizens.[14]
Louisiana Senator David Vitter (R) had tried to attach an amendment excluding non-citizens to a Census Bureau funding bill, but Democrats decisively voted it down 60-39.[13] The Senate voted to invoke cloture and end the debate on the Commerce bill without needing to include Vitter's Amendment. Louisiana 's Sen. Mary Landrieu, had written a scathing letter to Senator Vitter about his amendment voted to invoke cloture. Other than Republican Congressman Joseph Cao of New Orleans who is running for re-election in a heavily Democratic district strongly populated with minorities, all other members of the Louisiana delegation supported the Amendment.[9] Today, the Senate voted and achieved cloture with a 60-39 vote to cut-off further debate on the Commerce-Justice-Science Spending Bill killing the Vitter Amendment that sought to use the 2010 Census for anti-immigrant politicking.[15] Thanks to your support, on Thursday the Senate voted NO on the Vitter-Bennett amendment by voting for for cloture in a 60 - 39 vote on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill. For now, this puts to rest the divisive Vitter-Bennett amendment. Thanks to SEIU's Don't Wreck the Census campaign --our micro site and Tweet your Senator tool--we generated over 750 letters and 1,700 phone calls to members of the Senate, urging them to vote NO on the Vitter-Bennett amendment.[16] In voting for cloture on the Commerce Justice and Science (CJS) FY10 Appropriations bill, a majority of senators effectively stopped the amendment from coming up for a vote. If approved, the amendment would have asked respondents to identify if they are a U.S. citizen and would have required the reprinting of Census questionnaires at an estimated cost of $1 billion.[17]
The U.S. Senate blocked a controversial amendment today that would have required the Census Bureau to belatedly add a citizenship question to the 2010 Census questionnaire.[17] State Rep. Rick Gallot, D-Ruston, the chairman of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a meeting Wednesday with The News-Star's editorial board that a member of the state's Congressional delegation is being divisive and is motivated by personal political gain in his bid to get the U.S. Census Bureau to place a question about legal citizenship on the 2010 census.[4]
Vitter wanted the citizenship count as part of a bigger effort to require that U.S. House seats be apportioned strictly on the basis of the citizen population of the United States, and not, as has always been the practice, on the total population.[8] Bennet's plan was intended to remove undocumented immigrants from the count used to split U.S. House seats among the states.[7]
The Wesberry standard of voter equality between federal voting districts ("one man, one vote," which wording is a little misleading as it means each district should have the same number of voters) has yet to be applied across state lines. The Supreme Court has recognized the desirability of giving voters Wesberry protection in the apportionment of House seats, but due to other constitutional constraints ("the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 persons; each State shall have at least one Representative; and district boundaries may not cross state lines," U.S. Department of Commerce v. Montana ) they say it can't, practically speaking, be done.[1] In the House, the math just doesn't favor a measure like that, argues Andres Ramirez of the New Democrat Network. The undocumented are concentrated in the biggest states with the largest number of representatives, who won't exactly be keen on shrinking their ranks. Plus, says Ramirez, imagine if California were forced to subtract its population of illegal immigrants and lost five seats.[18] LSU law professor John Baker and Shreveport political analyst Elliott Stonecipher, who co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece over the summer that inspired Vitter's effort, believe the issue is ripe for challenge. "It never has made it to the Supreme Court," said Stonecipher, who last week joined Vitter at a meeting in Baton Rouge with state Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, to encourage him to consider bringing suit on behalf of the state. Caldwell agreed to study the matter and consult with his peers in other states that stand to lose representation in the next reapportionment. In his floor speech, Vitter said that Stonecipher, as well as analyses by Queens College sociologist Andrew Beveridge and New Orleans demographer Greg Rigamer, confirmed his view that Louisiana and eight other states would be impacted by the issue. Those states are North and South Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Indiana, Montana. Vitter's list, based on his own office's analysis, is that the ninth state is Mississippi not Montana, but these are all rough estimates. Vitter's mention of Stonecipher and Rigamer was telling because in a letter to Vitter last week, Landrieu wrote that "any demographer worth his salt (which would not be Elliott Stonecipher) would tell you that Louisiana's probable loss of a seat would occur even if there was not one illegal immigrant in the United States." Asked which demographers she was relying on for her analysis, Landrieu's office mentioned Rigamer.[8] Vitter contended that not counting immigrants for apportionment is a matter of basic fairness. At least nine states, including Vitter's home of Louisiana, stand to loose seats in Congress if non-citizens -- legal and illegal -- count toward states' apportionment.[10]
Without the change, Vitter said that Louisiana will be one of nine states to lose a congressional seat that would not lose the seat if reapportionment were based strictly on a count of citizens.[1] Instead of trying to put a partisan spin on everything, some of you really need to look at the logic of what is being proposed. Aren't congressional seats awarded to states by the number of citizens (potential voters) they represent? As much as I don't care for Vitter's personal issues, I agree with his amendment.[1] Vitter's amendment, however, would not have changed the way the congressional seats are allocated by counting citizens and non-citizens alike.[11]
The defeat of Vitter's amendment does not necessary spell the end of efforts -- in Congress or in the courts -- to challenge the way reapportionment is done. In the floor statement she submitted for the record, Landrieu said that while she agrees with Vitter that noncitizens should not be included "in the calculation that determines the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives," she believes that making that change would require an amendment to the Constitution. She added that her staff had "checked with the nation's foremost constitutional scholars at Yale, Stanford, and UCLA to name a few. They have checked with scholars from the political right and scholars from the political left.[8] LCCR had argued that the amendment put forward by Senators David Vitter, R. La., and Robert Bennett, R. Utah, was contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly states that the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives is based on a full count of persons in each state.[17] Many opponents of the Amendment claimed that the Amendment was against Hispanics, that Senator Vitter could have objected over a year ago and that the Amendment was against the constitution. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, adopted after the Civil War, says: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."[9]
The proposal by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter was aimed at excluding non-citizens from the population totals that are used to figure the number of congressional representatives for each state.[11] Conservative and Moderate Democrats keep the Liberal Dmeocrats in line but there are no Liberal or Moderate Republicans to keep the Conservative Republicans in line. The outspoken Liberal and Moderate Republicans get called "wishy washy" because they dont bow to the Conservative leadership. I already know how Vitter supporters will respond to this; they will respond with the usual Lib bashing, insults, name calling and townhall screaming matches but at the same time offer nothing of substance and nothing of value. Come on David Vitter, you moan and cry over our spending but refuse to acknowledge how much this would have cost us. Why cant Louisiana voters see through the hypocracy of of this man, if he cared at all about spending he would have produced this bill early 2007 when the economy was still healthy and could have afforded it but he waits until political tensions are high and an election coming soon to speak his mind to keep in good graces with the Conservative base.[1] Republican responses contain nothing of substance and nothing of logic just the usual "this guy is a joke", "our deficit is growing we need to do something", "blame the idiot voters who voted for him" but yet nothing of substance no real plan to turn things around. Republicans get tired of people calling them obstructionist who do nothing but its true. Think of every Republican response to every address this year its all been full of "We need to control cost and do this that and the third" but Republicans have no plan how to get it done. I dare any Republican in here to actually give me their plan as to how can they fix the economy and health care. I dare them to seriously debate, based on intelligence and intellectual arguments about what their plan is to fix the country. I would respect Republicans alot more if they just kept it honest and said "We dont want the country fixed under a Democrat, it would hurt us at election time", I would respect them more for telling the truth instead of the "Obama wants to kill grandma" that they blurted out during the town halls. Come on Republicans debate using facts and logic, I dont want hear "Supid Libs this", "Dumb Obama that", I want to hear logical and I want to hear substance. Wheres the Republicans health care plan they supposedly were going to try to craft? I recall 2 months ago the Republicans saying 'We have our own health care plan and we will produce it" but where is it? I recall back in March the Republicans said "We have our own version of a stimulus plan for America and we will produce it" but where is it.[1]
In 2007 we still had a Republican President and the Democrats didnt massacre the Republicans in the elections until 2008 so Vitter had nothing politically to gain from it. Hey Dave, the time to open your yapper was two years ago when they were fielding questions regarding the Census but you said nothing at the time.[1] Responding to Vitter, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who was guiding the appropriations bill to passage, told Vitter that "the time to stand up was in April 2007,'' when she said questions for the 2010 census were being vetted by Congress. Vitter didntr open his yapper in 2007 because there was nothing to gain poltically from it.[1] Simon Rosenberg, the founder of the New Democrat Network, opposed the measure. "We essentially went to war over this question as a country," Rosenberg said when Vitter introduced his bill. "The Civil War was fought over how we treat slaves and whether they're whole people or not. The country made a resolution around these questions, which is that everyone would be counted in the reapportionment. It is not something Congress can override through law. Congress does not have the ability to change this. They'd have to change the Constitution."[10] The way most districts are drawn in Louisiana the extra seat could be a democrat seat. One cannot argue that the one question is a huge waste in money when you look at the Trillion dollar spending bills being submitted by this Administration and Congress. Its really time for a complete change, but its not the liberal change we are experiencing and its not about giving California the extra seats.[8] The 60-39 vote was along party lines with Democrats supporting cutting off debate on a spending bill, effectively killing the amendment proposed by the Louisiana Republican.[6] The 60-37 vote, along party lines, cut off debate on a spending bill, effectively killing Vitter's amendment mandating the change.[5]
Reid blocked an up or down vote on the amendment that would be politically difficult for senators in eight other states that would be in the same situation as Louisiana, Vitter said. "I was disappointed that several Democrats chose loyalty to Harry Reid over their state's direct interest in the census," Vitter said. Prior to the vote, Vitter made a last pitch to senators to allow his amendment to come up. "However you may vote, this is an important issue," Vitter said.[6] A Vitter spokesman, Joel DiGrado, says the senator will try to find other legislative vehicles for the amendment and will continue to press the matter. He's "not going to just stop talking about the issue," says DiGrado. Those opposed to including illegal immigrants in the census count are studying other options.[18] Census officials have told Bayoubuzz that it needed to count all persons to get an accurate count. Senator Vitter has said that the cost estimates to change the census were not accurate and that the census without his amendment would not be accurate.[9]
The amendment also threatened to severely disrupt the 2010 Census. LCCR argued that hastily considered changes such as those proposed by Sens. Vitter and Bennett would delay the census and jeopardize the timing of redistricting and reapportionment, as well as negatively affect any public and private project that depends upon an accurate count of the U.S. population.[17]
The opening round of that fight was a proposed amendment sponsored by Republican Sens. David Vitter and Robert Bennett that would have added a question to the census survey asking whether the respondent is a citizen or not.[18] Sen. David Vitter, R-La., proposed requiring census forms to ask whether people were U.S. citizens when counted next April 1.[3] Senate blocks census citizenship question By ANDREW TAYLOR, AP posted: 10 MINUTES AGO comments: 0 Text Size A A A. WASHINGTON -Senate Democrats have blocked a GOP attempt to require next year's census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen.[10] Even though 100 million forms have already been printed, Vitter and Bennett threatened to stop funding for next year's decennial census if the forms were not reprinted to add the extra question. The census director told a Senate panel this fall that 100 million more census forms would cost about $22 million.[10]
Vitter spokesman Joel DiGrado could not be reached for comment Wednesday night. Gallot also addressed congressional reapportionment, which his committee, along with the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, will work on following the release of census results. Gallot said he will not go as far as Sen. Bob Kostelka, R-Monroe, the chairman of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, in making any specific pledges about how he will approach reapportionment. Kostelka has pledged to do everything in his power to make sure Monroe will not be lumped into a congressional district that includes Shreveport and Bossier City. "There's always the desire or the inclination to try and preserve seats as they currently exist and where we perceive the power base to be, and Congress is certainly no exception," Gallot said. "I admire and respect Sen. Kostelka, and I don't take issue with his position. I think it's premature for me to try and take a stand right now simply because No. 1, the census has not been conducted.[4] Of course, but it was not just the Senate. It was the liberal lefties in the Senate that want this country to become a province of the world and lose it's sovereignty. They want the illegals to count on the census so they can get more apportioned seats in the congress, since illegals are concentrated in liberoidiot States.[10]
Vitter said Louisiana is one of nine states that would either hold onto or gain a seat in the 2010 reapportionment if it were based on a count limited to citizens. He said the census would still count every person for other purposes.[8] Louisiana will lose a congressional seat because non-citizens are counted as part of the census. That's unfortunate news for our state; I'm amazed that Senator Landrieu didn't oppose the measure.[1] Vitter says that if non-citizens were excluded, Louisiana and eight other states would keep or gain congressional seats that would go to California, Texas, Illinois and New York.[11]
As I noted then, the 2010 census has sparked a battle over whether undocumented immigrants should be part of the count and thus included in state tallies used to reapportion Congressional seats, as has been the case in past cycles.[18] Some Latino organizations argued that the amendment would dissuade immigrants from filling out the government forms, which are used not only to apportion congressional seats to the states, but also to split trillions of dollars in federal funding.[7]
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., did not vote. Vitter's Democratic colleague, Sen. Mary Landrieu, who had been caustic in her criticism of Vitter's measure, voted with the majority and afterward inserted into the record a statement that, "Blaming immigrants for our problems doesn't take much effort, but it won't make our state a better place to live either." The vote was preceded by limited debate in which Vitter restated the case for his amendment, catalogued what he considers to be the mischaracterization of his efforts by those opposed to it and asked for an apology from Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for suggesting that his amendment was anti-immigrant and akin to past efforts to intimidate African-Americans from voting.[8] Vitter's home-state colleague, Democrat Mary Landrieu, recently said in a letter to Vitter that it would take a constitutional amendment to exclude immigrants from the count.[11]
All of the Senate's 60 Democrats voted for moving the bill without the immigration question amendment and 39 Republicans voted against it.[19] Earlier today, the amendment was blocked when the Senate voted 60-39 to end debate on an appropriations bill.[18]
U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., voted against moving the bill forward without the Vitter amendment.[19]
"Today U.S. Senators put working families ahead of the politics of division and hatred. Joining a chorus of former U.S. Census Directors and advocacy leaders, the Senate voted down Senators Vitter and Bennett's misguided attempt to undercut 2010 enumeration efforts and mar this critical process with hateful, anti-immigrant politics.[15] The U.S. Senate squashed an effort Thursday to include questions in the 2010 U.S. Census regarding immigration and citizenship status.[19] Washington » The Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, on Thursday that would have required the 2010 census to include a question about citizenship.[7]
"The Senate's move to protect the 2010 Census will help ensure we achieve an accurate count of our nation's diverse population-protecting billions of dollars in federal funding for local communities and ensuring reapportionment is based on a factual representation of who we are as a nation.[15]
"The civil rights community won an important battle today in the fight for a fair and accurate 2010 census that counts every person in the United States as required by the U.S. Constitution," said LCCR President and CEO Wade Henderson.[17] Like restrictionists, I therefore believe that some forms of exclusion are acceptable. That said, the capaciousness of our Constitution grants basic protections to all people within our borders, even those who do not enjoy the privileges of citizenship. Even if we deny noncitizens political and civil rights, the principles of our Constitution require that we grant them certain human rights ' some level of personal safety and dignity. When it comes to the census, what that suggests is that even though we may not count them as full members of our polity, we are still obliged to count them as individuals who occupy physical space within our national boundaries. Discounting the existence of illegal immigrants not only has ethical significance, it has a number of practical consequences, not least of which is that a well-regulated nation needs to know how many people reside within its territory.[12] Ninety years later, we still have no idea what to do with the millions of individuals who are in the U.S. without papers. The right wing can conveniently demonize them and seek to banish them from official records, but how does that help us deal with the millions already here or keep even one more person from hopping the border? Columbia University historian Mae M. Ngai has called the illegal immigrant the 'impossible subject,' a person who exists but doesn't, a person 'who cannot be, and a problem that cannot be solved,' at least as we currently structure ourselves. Illegal immigrants live with us, yet we do not count them in. We hire them, we even take their tax money, and yet we don't enter them in the ledger.[12]
McCain favors a business-backed guest worker program and some kind of legal path to citizenship for some of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. Skeptics term that amnesty.[19]
Illegal immigrants should not be counted they entered the country Illeaglly. They are NOT ABOVE THE LAW only the Democrats in Congress would ignore the law which they are swore to uphold. What don't they understand the Law is what it is. There the ones that write and pass the laws how about following them.They should be held with contempt for not following there own law that there body passed.[10] The census is held to determine proper representation in congress and for determining budget needs. Illegal aliens should NOT be considered in any of this. It is nothing more than a power grab by democrats to maintain their power base which has a large number of illegals. The politicians would sell their own mother if they thought it would keep them in office. If we keep letting these undocumented in this country we will find ourselves pushed out of your homes and off your land again. This will happen! History will repeat itself.[14] Some of you folks think it is OK to determine the number of Congressmen that Texas and California get by including the numbers of illegal aliens in those states? And it is OK that in part because of that, Louisiana and other states lose representation to Texas and California? Wait until you see what happens when the Louisiana legislature gets reapportioned after the next census: New Orleans having lost population will lose legislators.[9] Illegal aliens are just being used as a scapegoat for the failed conservatism of Louisiana that is the root cause of the out-migration. Living in the past and failure to adapt to a rapidly changing world by Louisiana conservatives has given us this reduced representation. No doubt some other state will use that additional representative to better their state.[8]
It is the members of the republican party who have shredded the constitution, attempting to establish a state religion in this nation, violating the first fourth and fifth amendments by limiting freedom of speach, the right to a speedy trial, the right to know charges leading to imprisionment, denying the right to legal representation, lieing to to congress, and the list goes on and on. They would like to continue violating the constitution by limiting the rights of women, people of color, and other minorities. [10] Even after trying to screw over states like California which has a large immigrant population. Don't legal immigrants and resident aliens pay taxes anyway??? I get this feeling that Congress is going to tell us that we are getting no increase in oil and gas revenue and that Louisiana can take that proposal and shove it!!! Lately we come off as being greedy, ungrateful, corrupt and selfish!!! Anything to keep they brand alive right ?!! We live in a glass house but yet we are steadily throwing stones at the rest of the nation. It is we who need to clean up all the corruption and our very negative image.[1]
Orleans parish will have less influence as a result, and will be much less likely to continue getting subsidies from the state. While the NOLA metro area pays its way, Orleans parish does not since its per capita income is low, and it pays less in taxes than it consumes in services. The same is true for the entire state of Louisiana: we pay less in taxes than we get in services, especially Medicaid and other subsidies to low income populations. All this matters, and you foolish people who just want to bash Senator Vitter are cutting off your own noses to spite your faces.[9] Louisiana was going to lose a seat anyway simply because of population loss since Katrina and general outmigration from Louisiana and Vitter knew that.[1] Without the change, Vitter said, "Louisiana is going to lose a House seat, one seventh of our strength, our representation, our clout."[8] "The current plan is to reapportion House seats using that overall number, citizens and non-citizens," Vitter said.[11]
The Senate vote protects one class of people from discrimination and assures a more complete count necessary to fairly allocate House seats for the next decade.[3] Too bad Vitter is in the Senate and not the house, we could have given up his seat. That would give Dave more time to do what he really enjoys - chasing hookers.[8] Since Vitter came on board what legislation has Vitter crafted that actually helped us? We are always seeing Mary Landrieu in the paper doing something and crafting some legislation even when Republicans dominated the White House and Senate but what has David Vitter for the region? Not a thing and the scariest part is Vitter still leads Charlie in the early poll.[1]
Change the Constitution or shut up. Why didn't Sinator Family Values David Vitter bring up this issue five years or even one year ago? Oh, I know.[8] Ramirez has no doubt that Vitter & Co. will keep the illegal-immigrant issue alive. "What they're trying to do is win in the court of public opinion," he says. "They want to get people riled up about it." That worries him and his allies, because the more controversy there is surrounding the census, the tougher it'll be to get comprehensive immigration reform passed next year.[18] Vitter called for all federal funding to be cut from the census bureau until it adds a line to the census questionnaire next year asking if a person is a U.S. citizen.[6] The GOP proposal would have blocked Census Bureau funds if it doesn't add the citizenship question to the more than 600 million forms.[11] Six former Census Bureau directors who opposed the amendment also backed Locke and Groves. Bennett dismissed their argument, saying all the government would have to do is print an extra sheet of paper to mail along with the already-created ensus questionnaire.[7]
Vitter is being extremely discriminatory. All his amendment was going to do is have people not respond to the Census who have something to hide. This would make the Census completely faulty and a wasted effort.[1] Vitter's amendment has been very controversial and columns have appeared in major news publications debating the issue.[9] On the Senate floor today, Sen, Vitter asked for an apology from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). for insinuating that the amendment was parallel to prior attempts to intimidate blacks from voting. Numerous Hispanic leaders and and major Hispanic groups, however, were against the Amendment such as the Hispanic Bar Association.[9] The pro-immigrant forces think these tactics will fail. Senate Democrats have just shown they've got the votes to turn back future attempts to include a similar amendment.[18] The Senate, with 60 Democratic votes, shut down debate, ditching the contentious amendments and clearing the way for a final vote.[2]
The Democratic leadership, which had been trying to derail the Vitter amendment since early October, eked out a partisan victory with the bare number of votes needed to invoke cloture.[8] Vitter said. The vote was preceded by a limited debate, in which Vitter restated the case for his amendment and asked for an apology from Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for suggesting that his amendment was anti-immigrant and akin to past efforts to intimidate African Americans from voting.[1]
The Vitter plan fell after a 60-39 procedural vote made it ineligible for inclusion in a bill funding the census.[11] Critics complained that Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from participating in the census, with law long recognizing that congressional districts are drawn by population.[14] Critics also said Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive.[11]
The Senate has blocked an attempt to skew the next census in favor of states that do not have large immigrant populations. [3] There would also be internal shifts within the states that could favor rural areas over urban regions, where immigrants tend to congregate. That would affect the state drawing of state district lines, which could exclude some people from representation. Among other consequences, the inaccurate count could also deny states and municipalities federal aid distributed according to their population.[3] The real controversy involved the senators' intention to use the information for apportioning Congressional districts, ensuring that only American citizens would count in determining each state's representation in Washington.[10] Sound logic, even if it is late. Hey libs, go to another country and see if they count you for representation. Just because a person is here legally or is paying taxes does not give him the full rights of a U.S. Citizen. Yes I blame the government and the Supreme Court in particular for allowing the Legislative and Excecutive branches exceed their power under the Constitution. They were supposed to be our last line of defense against the tyranical government we are moving towards.[1] I'm certainly not going to paint myself in a corner before a count is done." Gallot said his attention is focused on getting preclearance for a redistricting plan from the U.S. Justice Department that would ensure the state is in compliance with its obligations under the Voting Rights Act.[4]
TIP: You can now rate this story and post comments at the bottom of the text. Utah senator » He wanted to exclude undocumented residents from the tally used to apportion U.S. House seats among the states.[7] Numerous columns in national publications and blogs have criticized illegal aliens or the Amendment and the legislation took on a cause célèbre about combating illegal aliens regardless of the possible loss of House seats.[9] The purported intent of the Amendment was to ensure that illegal aliens were not counted in the census.[9] The amendment was mere political posturing. As far as illegal aliens go - deport them.[9]
The democrats are the only ones who do not want to round up the illegal aliens and send them packing. Why is that? Nancy Pelosi calls them the real Americans. She calls us AstroTurf and not representative of real Americans. Does she and the democrats plan to give them Amnesty against a vast majority of American wishes like they are pushing through Health Care and Restrict and Tax Energy policy? Why are they acting so recklessly and insanely? Are these democrats anti American, un American or just plain stupid ideologues adn Marxists? They are supposed to be the best educated and smartest the left has to offer - if you toss out 'Maxy Waxy' Waters. These questions are disturbing but I really want to find out the answer to them none the less.[10] I am very sure the American People did not want the illegal aliens provided money and representation in Congress.[18] I think it is clear that representation was yet another case of a Democratically Controlled Congress totally ignoring what the people want, and providing instead, what is good for the party. While the Democratic Party and the new ICE leadership continue to suggest all the pro-immigration law enforcement statistics and information are. shaky. and unfounded, they also made sure one of the very best ways to determine the correct answer was just destroyed by the Democratic Congress.[18]
When it came time for the Democrat-controlled state legislature there to redraw Congressional districts, guess which party would come up short? Same goes for other big Democrat-controlled states like New York and Illinois.[18] Last time I checked Alaska, Montana and Mississipi are states that generally vote Republican.[14]
Dems are either moderate or liberal. The libs ran the party until they has to face the angry and upset conservative tea party goers. Now they are forced to listen and stop following the libs such as Pelosi, Reid, Barney Frank and the almighty Obama. Vitter has been representative of the conservative principles that represent Louisiana, so all you libs who dislike him need to get over it. Run him in the ground all you want, and I am glad it irritates the hell out of you. I will cast my vote for him and work to replace Landrieu who One never knows which direction she swings.[1] Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted for what is called cloture, a parliamentary procedure that helps end debate quickly. She helped provide her party with the 60 votes needed to quash Vitter's effort.[6] October, eked out a victory with the bare number of votes needed to invoke cloture, prevailing 60 to 39. Vitter's Democratic colleague, Sen. Mary Landrieu, who had been caustic in her criticism of Vitter's measure, voted with the majority.[1]
Vitter just doesnt want LA to lose an electoral college seat for the President's election in 2012. Vitter knows LAs vote in 2012 really wont matter if LA loses an electoral colelge vote which they are on the verge of doing. As I said politics at best, Vitter could give a crap aout this country and he could give a crap about this region.[1] To vote for Vitter for re-election would put Louisiana back decades. even though the election of Nazi David Duke and the race baiting Justice of the Peace and the Ku Klux Klan member shooting his own recruit have already done this.[8] Vitter has it right for a change. You might question the timeliness, but if you have any respect for Louisiana, you would support his efforts because it could be a loss of representation.[8] Louisiana conservatives love to boast that this state is "the most conservative state in the country." They're probably right.[8] Wait until a few months down the road when Louisiana's delegates and the Jindal administration go running to Congress begging and whining for more oil and gas revenue. That 37.5% that were sharing with 3 other states won't be enough to tackle Louisiana's coastal erosion problems. I think the unmitigated audacity, though is the fact that Louisiana consistently goes against this current administration and key members of Congress but is so quick to run to them afterwards with their greedy little parochial hands stuck out begging for more federal funds.[1]
The census has, historically, counted noncitizens., and in some years it asked the citizenship status (as a yes/no question). I wish members of Congress would become familiar with the subjects of their speeches before they make fools of themselves.[14] The census, which takes place every 10 years, has occasionally asked a question about citizenship, but the government has never removed noncitizens from any official counts.[7]
Democrats blocked a Republican effort to pin down residents' citizenship during next year's census.[2]
What Vitter failed to mention in his debate this morning would be the overall cost to the taxpayers to add one single checkbox to the census form. Mikulski was correct - if he was really concerned about this idea then he should have spoke up a few years ago, not in 2009 to try to have something to show for the election next year in which he is likely to be spanked out of Washington.[1] If bloating the federal budget with the costs of unjust wars wasn't enough now the great senators from La and UT want to waste $22 million printing unneeded new census forms.[10]
Landrieu said adding the question would be too expensive because many census forms have already been printed and adding the question could threaten the April 1 deadline.[4]
The Constitution calls for a census based on the "whole number of persons" residing in a state.[14] If noncitizens, all of whom should be counted in the census, are REMOVED from apportionment, the goal of ensuring equal numbers of voters in House districts becomes much easier. What I've read indicates the Supreme Court would, if presented with a practical plan to achieve voter equality within the constitutional constraints, approve such a plan.[1] The expectation was that noncitizens would be excluded in the population numbers used to reapportion House seats.[3]
The court denied Sanford's motion to keep the State Ethics Commission report secret, and a request from the state House of Representatives requiring that a copy of the report be given to lawmakers.[5]
Besides Mr. Quidd, I would have thought you would have a better understanding of how things actually are in congress. Un;ess there is divided government (by far the best for the country, for many reasons), the party in power passes what they want - slightly modified due to needing a small number of the minority party on occassion. No GOP senator or representative will get any legislation passed, until they have a majority. It is no different for the Dems.[9] If one watches bills moving thru congress on C-Span I or II, it becomes evident that there are many outrageous amendments that are attempted to be added to legislation. All in all this is much ado about nothing.[9] LA is full of stupid, ignorant, uneducated trash. starting with Vitter and his supporters. This bill was nothing but a political stunt and a big waste of time and money. you know your tax $s.[8] The Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill is now under consideration in the Senate, without the Vitter measure attached.[10]
Sen. Vitter argued that counting everyone, citizen and noncitizen alike in congressional reapportionment, was "contrary to the whole intent of the Constitution and the establishment of Congress as a democratic institution to represent citizens." [3] No election then. Some people can be such sheep. These same people really believe that, for example, the U.S. Attorney and the FBI did not know that Vitter was out there.[8] "As we approach the March, 2010 launch of the U.S. Census, SEIU will continue our efforts to support an accurate, timely count of Latinos and other traditionally undercounted communities.[15] The key issue was whether the census could only count "citizens" since Section 2 said "persons".[9]
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund is leading a multi-city campaign to ensure a full count of hard-to-reach populations in the United States.[17] What LA lost a seat. We lost a seat because people no longer want to live in this state. Can you blame them? Don't get me wrong, I love living in LA because this is where my family lives, but what else does LA have to offer? We are at the bottom of all the good list and at the top of all bad list. It has been that way for decades. long before immigration became a problem.[8] The 58 Democrats and two left-leaning independents supported moving forward on the legislation without Bennett's immigration amendment, while 39 Republicans opposed it.[7] Failure to listen and a bad case of Denial seems to be the Democrat and most of the Republican Way of doing business. Your God and Saviour Obama is not the answer and He more than anyone is surging towards a Socialist State.[1]
A former Director of the Census serving four presidents (Republican and Democrats) had said that the census had always counted persons, not citizens.[9] "As we've said, the proposal is just not doable and we would have had to delay the census," Census Bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner said Thursday.[11] Opponents countered that the plan would discourage immigrants from participating in the 2010 Census.[3]
Just because you want to back a Democratic Party full of tax cheats, queers, black panther thugs, an ex-president clinton who screwed everything that wasn't nailed down and a president who has zero leadership ability you want to call David Vitter names. [8] Counting or not counting illegals? Humbug. Vitter was just doing a little political grandstanding and besides he knows that adding one more failure to his career will not make a difference. Another legislative failure for David Vitter.[9]
We can't do that unless we know whether or not we are counting actual U.S. citizens. My amendment would have helped us do just that - it's a shame that so many of my colleagues chose to ignore that." [1] Again--thank you for making calls, writing letters, blogging, and Tweeting your Senators to vote no on the Vitter-Bennett amendment.[16]
SOURCES
1. Vitter amendment on census falls in Senate vote | Louisiana Politics & Government - - Louisiana Politics | State Legislature News - NOLA.com
2. Democrats Ditch GOP Effort to Question Citizenship in 2010 Census - Washington Wire - WSJ
3. Watertown Daily Times | Count everyone
4. Gallot: Lawmaker divisive on census 'illegals' question | thenewsstar.com | The News Star
5. Southern Political Report
6. 2theadvocate.com | Legislature & Politics | Senate blocks vote on Vitter census bill -- Baton Rouge, LA
7. Bennett's census-immigration amendment rejected - Salt Lake Tribune
8. Census vote defeat will cost Louisiana a House seat, David Vitter says | Louisiana Politics & Government - - Louisiana Politics | State Legislature News - NOLA.com
9. US Senate Kills Louisiana Sen. Vitter Census, Illegal Alien Amendment
10. Senate Kills Vitter Amendment to Include Citizenship Question on Census Forms -- Politics Daily
11. The Associated Press: Senate blocks census citizenship question
12. A census plan that doesn't add up | PressDemocrat.com | The Press Democrat | Santa Rosa, CA
13. Democrats block Census Bureau from excluding illegal immigrants
14. Census counting all -- citizens or not | D.C. Now | Los Angeles Times
15. CAUSA: Senate kills divisive Vitter Amendment seeking to wreck Census
16. SEIU - Service Employees International Union - Victory! Vitter-Bennett amendment defeated
17. Unjust Census Amendment Dropped - Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
18. In Round One of the Census Battle, Vitter and Bennett Lose - The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com
19. Senate says no to citizenship questions on Census surveys - Phoenix Business Journal:
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on Bennett's census-immigration amendment rejected by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
