Right. But as I understand it, the argument is we must consider illegals in
apportioning Congressional representation because the Constitution doesn't specifically say citizens. Thus we must include illegals and anyone inside our borders to determine Congressional representation, even though the Constitution doesn't say they're part of "population" specifically either. My suggestion is they excluded Indians for the very reason they did not consider them part of the population, and as such would treat illegals the same way since they don't have a legal right to be here and be part of the "population".
|
(
In response to this post by Seattle .Hoo)
Posted: 07/12/2019 at 07:58AM