imagine you're a republican in California who has voted against every one of these politicians. now you get shitty roads because someone you voted against did something you disagree with. that's "fair"? lol

It is. As long as these rules are applied to every state its fair.

it's "fair" to states.

here's what you quoted:



im asking if it's fair to citizens, not states.

It is. Citizens have the power to elect officials. Its absolutely fair for citizens to feel adverse effects of the government that was voted in.

But we're long past this stage, arent we? Just today, an article came out that did the math:

https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigration-Apportionment-Seats-US-House-Representatives-2020









----


And the effect on the Electoral College math will be even more dramatic once the dam breaks. Illegal immigration has already turned Arizona into a purple state, and no one would even dare to think about a "blue Texas" if it werent for the state's soaring immigrant population. If Texas becomes a swing state, that would have GIGANTIC political consequences for the entire country.

The political impact of counting all residents for the purpose of Congressional apportionment has only been flying under the radar so far because the states most affected by it (CA, AZ, TX, NY, NJ, IL, WA, FL) started out with such a strong baseline partisanship that immigration didnt alter their partisan lean until recently. (Florida is a case sui generis because one large group among the immigrants it received (Cubans) is far more Republican-leaning than any other immigrant group in the nation.)




sidenote: I didnt have the article I just linked in mind when I started this discussion; I just now stumbled over it. Funny coincidence.

so it's fair to a california republican that someone they didnt vote for made a desicion they disagree with, and now they have bad roads? or even worse, what if the democratic politician didnt even run on or mention sanctuary city laws, and just implemented them once elected?

how is that fair to the people who vote? the govt that was voted in doesnt almost ever match the govt once its voted in.



but again, this is built on the idea that illegal immigrants dont deserve representation. which i dont agree with. they dont deserve to vote, they shouldnt be on juries, etc. but every day of their lives they pay sales tax, many pay tolls on roads, many have licenced vehicles, some even pay income tax.

what is it they say again? hmmmmm i can almost think of it. some weird group of guys used to say, ahhhh yes. No taxation without representation. if illegals cant be counted for house seats they shouldnt pay sales tax, or any other tax for that matter.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 19 2019 02:38pm

Did you seriously just compare people who were kidnapped from their home country and brought to another continent against their will with people who voluntarily entered the U.S. and even took great risks and expenses to get here?

I'm assuming you don't understand who was making the Missouri compromise and for what purposes.



It's an honest mistake.

That's an issue with our representation not following the will of those who chose them. I won't say that's good or right.

Fair? People all across the country deal with this same issue. We fail to vet our representatives well enough on many issues. I'd say its fair even if its not good or right.

Bolded: I agree that they shouldn't be taxed. They should identify themselves as illegal immigrants to the federal government so that we can make sure of it.

the 3/5ths compromise was directly to access how many congressional seats states should have.

its about as good of a comparison as someone can make, even if Skinned was clearly being cheeky.



we're being fairly semantic here. life is rarely fair. it seems like a pretty poor argument to suggest this would be fair, if almost nothing else in life is.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 19 2019 03:15pm