Trump Orders New Work on Census: Illegals ‘Will Not be Counted’
“The data collected by the decennial census determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Commerce to develop “a new and highly accurate census” that does not count illegal aliens.
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 7, 2025
The Constitution requires the country to take a new census every ten years to count every resident in America.
It is known as the Decennial Census:
The data collected by the decennial census determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and is also used to distribute hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds to local communities.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Whatever the
(Continued) merits of President Trump’s order, a federal judge will issue an injunction to reverse the order.
But it will be crafted to win in the long-game and they know this going in
No other criminal enterprise would be left intact. MAGA and “Republicans” GROW A SET
Democrats conspired with hostile foreign regimes to not only import as many CRIMINAL MIGRANTS AS POSSIBLE during the Kenyan’s 3rd term, they conspired to EMPTY PRISONS AND MENTAL INSTITUTIONS and FLY THOSE PEOPLE HERE in midnight flight sponsored by our traitors in the deep state. Destinations included HPN (Westchester NY)
This is the type of thing that DIRECTLY led to the rape/murder of Jocelyn Nungary, a 12 year old Texas girl, and countless others. It’s unlikely the Democrat crime cabal could have disappeared the mountains of evidence associated with this facet of the Democrat crime cabal
RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) can apply to immigration crimes if they’re part of a pattern of racketeering activity conducted by an organized enterprise. RICO targets ongoing criminal enterprises engaging in specific predicate offenses, like fraud, extortion, or trafficking. Some immigration-related crimes, such as visa fraud, human smuggling, or document trafficking, could qualify as predicate offenses if they meet RICO’s criteria: a structured group, repeated illegal acts over time, and an impact on interstate or foreign commerce.
For example, a criminal organization systematically smuggling migrants or forging immigration documents for profit could face RICO charges. However, standalone immigration violations, like illegal entry without an organized scheme, typically wouldn’t trigger RICO. Prosecutors must prove the enterprise’s structure and a pattern (at least two predicate acts within 10 years). Penalties include up to 20 years per racketeering count, fines, and asset forfeiture.
It will be a lot easier not to count them after they are deported.
Those who say that a mid-decennial census is somehow improper miss what the Constitution requires: a census at least every ten years. The Constitution does not forbid taking a census more frequently. In 1787, a census was an arduous affair. Our technology today allows us to count more quickly and efficiently. We could re-district before every election if we so wished; the problems would not be technical but rather societal and political.
The real issue (I can hear Milhouse stirring) is whether a census that conforms to the Constitution can count only citizens or must include “all persons” (14th amendment). On that one I think the SC would rule against President Trump.
The Constitution says all people should be counted. Does it specify how those numbers must be used? If everyone is counted but only citizens used in apportionment, what would be the result? I can see a big mess deciding that question.
.
The actual term used in the Constitution isn’t “people” – it’s “residents”.
Historically that’s been interpreted to mean those who are here legally and not just as visitors or guests. Or slaves – until slave-owning states forced a compromise where they got to (partially) count slaves as well.
There were no immigration laws at The Founding – so there was no illegal immigration – as such. However they did acknowledge there was a distinction in the part that says the President can’t be a foreigner but must be native-born – whatever that means.
No, the 14th Amendment says “all persons”, not “residents”.
The 14th Amendment isn’t about the census.
Yes, it is. Read it. It requires “the whole number of persons in each state” to be counted.
And the original provision that this replaced said “the whole number of free persons”, plus “three fifths of all other persons”.
Ah, there you are Milhouse!
I read it similarly; we are required to count ‘persons’. It’s muddied a bit by the preceding part of the 14A talking about citizenship (all born in the US and subject to jurisdiction). There are those who say that illegal immigrants, being not subject to jurisdiction, would not be ‘persons’ to be counted. I think the USSC in the past has rejected that argument but I don’t know that area of law.
Steve, “persons” has no connection to citizenship. Those are two separate concepts. Only some persons are entitled to citizenship, but all persons are to be represented, including aliens. Likewise it says all persons are entitled to equal protection; not just citizens but everyone.
Milhouse, consider the different definitions/concepts of ‘personage’: if only some persons are entitled to be citizens, and only citizens are entitled to vote, then for the purposes of apportionment, we count only citizens, as they are the ones who hold the franchise and thus vote within the apportioned districts. I think I could make a case for that which would survive the 14A.
For other purposes (e.g., distributing federal aid per an Act of Congress, but the reasons could be quite broad) we may indeed want to count all persons, citizens or not, and thus require a count of all persons.
No, Steve, there are not “different definitions/concepts of ‘personage’”. Throughout the constitution (and really the English language) “person” means the same thing. Even slaves were persons.
The 14th amendment says that some persons are entitled to US citizenship.
Then it says that all persons are to be represented, including those who are not entitled to vote.
Then it says that all persons are also entitled to equal protection.
No, you cannot make a case for counting only citizens. Start with the fact that not all citizens are entitled to vote. So if you were to count only those with the franchise you’d have to exclude many/most citizens. Women, children, felons, imbeciles, those who don’t own sufficient property or who fail the literacy test, etc. Second bear in mind that in the early days of the USA some states did allow resident aliens to vote, so at the time this provision was originally adopted in 1788 there was no necessary connection between citizenship and the franchise. In any case, it was always clear that non-voters, including aliens, must be counted, because they were persons.
It doesn’t have to be a mess. It can count everyone resident in the country while separating those here legally and. This legally entitled to vote while counting those also here illegally and not able to vote.
Both requirements are met.
This is EXACTLY what they should do. I for one would like to know approximately how many illegals there are and where exactly are they.
They can separate the numbers by any criteria they like. They can count how many tall people there are and how many short. They can sort people by eye color, or by preferred pizza toppings. But representation can only be allocated by “the whole number of persons” in each state, so that is whom the census must count. The whole number of persons; that means citizens, legal aliens, illegal aliens, tourists, everyone. Even foreign diplomats, whose children are not eligible for citizenship. Just not “Indians not taxed”, a category that disappeared when Congress decided to start taxing all Indians.
No mess at all; it would be clearly invalid. The constitution actually doesn’t directly say who should be counted. Rather it says that representation must be apportioned according to “the whole number of persons in each state”, and that this number must be determined by counting them. It therefore follows that that is whom you have to count.
Counting illegal immigrants in the census is – in effect – a Cunning Plan – and methodology – that increases the pro-illegal immigration party’s power (and finances). It rewards “Sanctuary Cities” for breaking the law.
Just as the Three-Fifths Compromise to count other non-citizens (ie slaves) was a Cunning Plan to increase the pro-slavery party’s power.
Is it really a coincidence that in both cases the “pro-party” is the (D)s?
Everyone was in favor of counting non-citizens. There was never a proposal not to. What the northern states wanted was to count all free persons, whether they were citizens or aliens, and whether they could vote or not, but not unfree persons. Not because they weren’t citizens, but simply because they weren’t free.
The southern states said that wasn’t fair; if you get representation for foreigners, and for women and children who can’t vote, for imbeciles, and even for prisoners and indentured servants, then why not for slaves too? The real reason was that the northern states weren’t willing to give the southern ones so much power; so they compromised on counting three out of every five “other persons” (the constitution carefully never mentions slavery, for fear of appearing to give it legitimacy).
But there was never any suggestion that free aliens should not be counted, or that criminals should not be counted. It was taken for granted that they should. So there’s no argument for not counting aliens just because they’re here illegally.
Think I’m going to want a reference on that — is that in the Federalist papers?
I’m not sure where it is, but you can see it from the outcome.
But consider that if everyone took something for granted then you would expect to see no discussion of it! So you can’t ask to see where it was discussed. The absence of any discussion of a topic indicates that there was no disagreement.
how can it even be legal to count people that are not citizens
the left wont stop being criminals so we must jail all those who break the law
a gop jumped shipped and went to the dems and said its b/c the gop doesnt know how to “love its neighbors”
thats how sick the left is
dont love america but “love your neighbors” ( maybe hes having an affair with his?)
How can it be legal to not count people who aren’t citizens as persons, as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
There is a perverse incentive to count illegals for purposes of representation, an incentive that solely benefits those in political power, and disadvantages the citizen by diluting his voice. You’d be hard pressed to present a cogent argument that this was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
On the contrary, it was explicitly their intention. They said so. “All persons”. Including aliens. There were no illegal aliens in their days, but there were plenty of legal aliens, and the constitution says they must be counted. So why would illegal ones be any different? Are they not persons?
Even slaves were persons; everyone agreed on that. That’s why the original provision said to count “all free persons”, plus “three fifths of all other persons“. No one claimed slaves weren’t persons. And the 14th amendment removed all distinctions by changing it to “all persons”, period.
(Except Indians not taxed, who had a peculiar status, being considered to not really be in the USA at all, even though they were within its geographical boundaries. It was as if each Indian not taxed carried a little enclave of foreign territory around with him, never setting foot in the actual USA. When an Indian chose to be taxed that enclave disappeared and he was counted as having suddenly immigrated into the USA.)
The same way it was legal to exclude Indians who were considered citizens of their own sovereign nations. The entire argument over who is considered a citizen is still being argued today because democrats refused to accept that slaves born in this country could have legal status as citizens. Democrats didn’t recognize black people as fully human, deserving of any rights. This is an issue caused by democrats, now being exploited by democrats.
Indians Not Taxed were only excluded because the constitution explicitly says to exclude them. If not for that they would have to be counted too. The constitution says all other persons must be counted, regardless of their citizenship. Even foreign diplomats, who are not under US jurisdiction and whose children born here are not citizens; they’re still persons, so they must be counted.
Because the constitution explicitly says that “all persons” must be counted. There was never any notion that only citizens should be counted, or only those who could vote should be counted. No one wanted that. Everyone agreed that aliens had to be counted. The only exception was those Indians who were exempt from taxes. And the only disagreement was over slaves.
This also hits electoral college votes.
No one is thinking this way, but at present migration to red states is slower than would be otherwise.
REASON: Housing market is terrible and interest rates are high. Speaking from experience, that move was hella expensive. Those red states aren’t cheap anymore and the market in blue states is softer than anyone will fess up to.
In our case we gave up a septic tank, well, heating with wood, and no HOA to escape. Selection in our destination was terrible and over priced. The market when leaving was soft. I ended up holding the note at 5% (balloon due in 5 years) to someone I know and gave them 6 months to sell their own house before the first payment. At that point sales REALLY started slowing.
When interest rates drop and jobs pick back up, expect migration to ramp back up. Everyone wants to leave the left coast.
Yes, that was the idea when the constitution was adopted. That’s why the southern states wanted to include all persons, free or unfree.
The illegals should be counted. We can’t expect to cure this self-imposed problem by such legerdemain. We need to declare an open hunting season and cull the herd.
ice is doing a good job of that
cause Im sureeeee thats what you mean
The main point of the census is to determine representation in Congress. Illegals should never have been counted in the first place, since they are not lawful residents and thus are not entitled to representation.
Visa holders as well. Citizens, and I’ll allow green card holders as they have the intent to become citizens.
I think it should depend on the visa; student visas and H1B (at the very least) ought to be excluded, IMHO.
Many green card holders do not have the intent of becoming citizens. They don’t see the point, and that’s completely OK.
And when the constitution was adopted there was no such thing as a green card. Aliens stayed here for as long as they liked, and there was no expectation that they would ever be naturalized if they chose not to.
The constitution explicitly requires counting “all persons”, regardless of their status, with the sole exception of Indians Not Taxed, a category that now has zero people in it. It has no connection with who can vote.
Should we call them illegals or undocumented?
Without any documents, we shouldn’t be calling them immigrants. Maybe pilgrims, travelers, visitors, tourists, wayfarers, journeyers, vacationers, or traffickers. But not immigrants.
And why should we count any of them if they don’t have any documents?
Hey, if lack of documents is the problem, why don’t we just give them some documents?
Wait, what is the point of all of this?
“The main point of the census is to determine representation in Congress.”
The term in law is “illegal alien.” It’s accurate and sufficient.
That is what I call them also, but question is, should they be counted? I don’t think so. While others on here are arguing that they should be.
I’m thinking that you agree with me on that. Maybe I’m wrong.
Yes, they must be counted, because the constitution says so. Not counting them is utterly illegal, just as illegal as their entry into the country. A census that doesn’t count them is invalid and can’t be used for apportionment.
Invaders.
An immigrant is someone who has immigrated. That’s all. It makes no difference how they immigrated, or whether they had any legal right to do so, let alone whether they possess any documents about it.
The term “undocumented” is a Democrat euphemism, which isn’t even accurate. Illegal aliens generally have many documents; more documents than most of us have. Possession of documents doesn’t make them legal.
A US citizen whose birth was never registered, and who has never applied for a passport, etc., is undocumented, but certainly legal.
So we shouldn’t be using that term “undocumented”. It’s an irrelevant category. Like the term “gun violence”, as opposed to just “violence”; a category that exists but has no relevance to anything, so it shouldn’t be used.
From the 14th Amendment, Section 2:
“Representative 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.”
It’s rather clear that illegals must be counted and included in the numbers for reapportionment (and thus the Electoral College).
It is disheartening how so many just want to impose what they fancy and will twist and warp the Constitution if not outright make stuff up or redefine words willy-nilly to such a degree that even the Warren Court would be aghast in its brazenness.
“Representative 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.”
Reading how the phrase “excluding Indians not taxed” has been applied in past censuses the answer seems to be to classify those illegal immigrants who would qualify ( via genetics and history) as members of a recognized tribe and place them on a reservation putting them under tribal rule thus excluding them from the census count. It would also mean more casinos but hey, the good with the bad.
Indians not taxed means they can ignore US law with impunity. They can’t be sued in our courts, and if they murder each other they can’t be prosecuted in our courts.
Anyway, even if we wanted to put them in that category we can’t, because they’re not Indians; the constitution is clear and we can’t just pretend people are something they aren’t.
Oh I am aware they are not Indians. Which is why I pointed out the rather improbable if not downright impossible machinations that would have to happen before they would meet that exemption from being included in the census count.
Even if those machinations were met it still would not mean an wholesale exemption because Indians are (with some exceptions) subject to federal income tax. Which scuttles the whole “not taxed” part of that clause.
I am of the opinion that Congress knew full well what they intended when they wrote “Counting the whole number of persons…” To me that intention that no state be put at a disadvantage by having to juggle various categories of residents whether permanent or temporary or legal or illegal. With each state deciding who they could exclude or include. Everyone is counted. Then ten years later the count is changed based on the now current population. The apportioning is then related to one criteria universally held to not 50 separate ones.
I don’t think “they can ignore U.S. law with impunity.” is 100% factual. I believe it would have applied only to crimes committed on a tribe’s sovereign land. There are certainly historical cases of Indians being charged with and tried for crimes against U.S. law.
Those who committed crimes on tribal land would be subject to and prosecuted under tribal laws. So they were not allowed to just shoot somebody in front of a local sheriff and not face any arrest and penalties.
Tribal Indians could not be prosecuted for murdering other tribal Indians, even in front of the sheriff.
Consider Senator Trumbull’s speech in the senate debate on the 14th amendment:
Do you understand why Indians, not taxed, were excluded?
They were considered not to be really in the USA. They were physically within the USA’s geographical boundaries, but considered not to “really” be there. They were almost completely exempt from US law. Not only were they exempt from all taxes, they could not be sued in a US court, they could not be made to testify, and they could not be prosecuted for anything they did to each other. An Indian Not Taxed could murder another such person right in front of the county sheriff, and there was not a damned thing he could do about it.
Of course, you complain about this regardless of which party does it.
If illegals are to be counted based on the Constitution,..all the more reason to deport them all asap! The Founding Fathers would not have anticipated this country being governed by Presidents (Biden and others) who allowed millions to invade us…unvetted. Perpetual deportations until the job is completed.
On the contrary, they never anticipated that there would ever be restrictions on immigration, or any kind of “vetting” of immigrants. They expected that anyone who wanted to come here would always be free to do so without any need to seek permission from anyone.
The easy solution would be to count illegal aliens for the purposes of data analysis and statistics, but, not to count them for the purposes of apportioning congressional seats to states.
This would eliminate the current, utterly farcical, indefensible and inequitable situation whereby Dhimmi-crat states’ congressional power/representation is artificially inflated/amplified by counting illegal aliens for the purposes of congressional seat apportionment — at the obvious expense of “red” states and their voters.
Count them to facilitate deporting them.
That would not be a solution at all, because it would be blatantly illegal. Apportionment must be according to “all persons in each state”, no matter how they got there or why they’re there.
illegal actions means you lose the ability to move freely within a society
when the government changes what the term illegal means…and they have
you have a systemic breakdown of civility …which we have
stop with all the piling on and simplify what it means to be a citizen of the usa
federal law usurps state laws and there should be no exceptions
so if the left wins and you can come over here and the law says
you can be here one day and vote…then so be it
if there is resistance to that…then let the chips fall where they may
b/c we are already there
the civil war is in pocketed areas right now and lefty has been
how should we say this..oh yeah…
BEGGING FOR A BEAT DOWN
You missed the key part of why he’s demanding a new census. And it’s not illegals.
It’s that the Census Bureau HAS ADMITTED that the 2020 census was a joke.
‘According to the Bureau’s own Post-Enumeration Survey (PES), eight states were overcounted while six were undercounted. But here’s where it gets truly absurd: The Census Bureau claims it can’t identify which groups were miscounted or where the errors occurred, citing “sample sizes within most states do not support such estimates.” Translation? They know it was wrong, but they can’t — or won’t — say how or where.’
Refusing to answer the question IS to answer it.
Florida and Texas lost seats they shouldn’t have, while states like Rhode Island, Minnesota and Colorado either gained seats or maintained seats that their population didn’t support.
THAT’S the reason he’s demanding a new census, not illegals – although this is certainly the opportunity to fix that.
I suppose you could get a comparison Census that tracked just Citizens done in parallel to the Census but I don’t see how you could ignore the requirement to count every person without an amendment. If you wanted to be ruthless you could send ICE to the neighborhood at the same time as the Census takers and only do in person Census count/contact.
By all means take another look at the data from the 2020 Census. The accuracy of that data was at best impacted by Covid and at worst manipulated using Covid as the excuse. There’s roughly a half dozen CD that would be lost to big Blue States and gained by Red States. Strangely the benefit of the bad data all flows to the d/prog. Simply correcting those six CD creates a 12 CD swing to the GoP. That’s one reason why the 2030 Census is gonna be a huge change….there a net change +6 to Red States from 2020 alone. Since then the population shift out of NY, IL, CA to Red States has continued roughly another 4 CD and were five years away from the next count. By 2032 when the next Census data is implemented the Blue States are likely to lose between 12 and 15 CD to Red States. That’s significant difference in the Congressional map and the Electoral College map.
Congress could act to alter the composition of CD after reapportionment among the States to require roughly equal numbers of US Citizens (+/- 10%) in each CD. That would really throw a wrench in the way CD are drawn. It would also pass constitutional muster b/c it would be working to stop dilution of power among voters in different CD. Some current CD have 3x the number of eligible voters as a neighboring CD which means the voters in the neighboring CD have 3x the individual political power for their vote.
He can have a new census if he likes, and if he can find some statute that authorizes him to; but unless it counts “the whole number of persons in each state” it can’t be used for congressional apportionment. Not counting people here illegally means it can’t be used.
Does the census count tourists as well?
I don’t know, but it should. They’re persons, and they have constitutional rights while they’re here. I don’t know whether anyone has ever thought to litigate the matter one way or the other.
I happen to know that Australia does count tourists; absolutely everyone who is in Australia on census night must fill in the form, or have it filled in for them, so it reflects a snapshot of everyone who was there on that one night. I guess including foreign tourists balances not including Australians who are touring somewhere else. People are counted at wherever they happen to be that night, so it shows how many people were staying at hotels, how many were camping, how many were on overnight buses and trains, etc.
Some folks leave out the actual words in the constitution in an attempt to keep illegals being counted in order to provide power to the left:
“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
Who is counted is subject to the Congress of the United States and the congress can take away the count of illegals.
How often is simple – at least every ten years. It can be every year if that’s how we wish to do it. It just can’t be more than ten between.
No it is not, and you know it. There is absolutely no wiggle room in who may be counted, and Congress has no say in the matter. If a census does not count “the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed”, then it is invalid and cannot be used for apportionment. Any purported apportionment made based on another count would be invalid, and any congress elected under it would have no authority.
“No it is not, and you know it.”
Yes it is, and you either can’t read or do not understand the English language.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, makes it very clear that congress has the right to change who is counted as it clearly states what I bolded above and will do so again: “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct“.
This isn’t “wiggle room”, it’s a path for a dump truck, and the construction of the sentence is very clear to those who understand English. Those that don’t, or just don’t like what it says, ignore it, as you do.
Explain then what you think the wording “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct” actually means. I’ll pop some popcorn to eat while you explain it.