Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:

On 6/8/2025 6:38 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 6/7/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/7/2025 3:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:05:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:52:16 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:27:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 04:27:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:29:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 6/5/2025 8:22 PM, cyclintom wrote:

>
Around here the idiot governor has driven most good people out of the state and they have been replace by honest hard working illegals. No one is coming back to the worst state just because it has the best weather.

>
I spent a week there not long ago. You're right, Tom, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, San Jose, Cupertino, San Francisco were like deserts! Nobody
as far as the eye could see!   :-)
>
I don't know what caused all the traffic. Robotaxis in disguise? But who
would need them?

>
With over 817,000 residents leaving in 2023, California continues to
have one of the highest outbound migration rates. High housing costs,
rising taxes, and concerns about affordability are pushing residents
to states like Texas and Arizona. When asked what state has the most
people leaving, California consistently ranks at the top due to its
high cost of living and economic challenges.
https://clancymoving.com/blog/2025/april/moving- statistics-and- trends-for-2025-what-to-expect-this- year/

>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ California_exodus#Demographics>
Leaving Calif    -690,127 in 2023
Entering Calif   +422,075 in 2023
=================================
Net change       -268,052
>
Source of data:
<https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/ geographic- mobility/state-to-state-migration.html>

>
I'd like to see the in/out numbers of registered voters

>
Thanks for ignoring what I wrote.  Your numbers from Clancy Relocation
and Logistics appear to be faulty and not very authoritative.  I
suggest you find a better source that provides sources for its
numbers.  You also ignored everyone entering California.
>
I couldn't find anything that counted California in- migration and
out-migration by voter registration or political party affiliation.
>
Perhaps I could provide an answer if you could rewrite your request
into something that I can feed to an AI.  Using ChatGPT 3 and asking:
"What is the percent immigration, in and out of California by
political party in 2024?"
<https://chatgpt.com/ share/68439ab9-02c0-800c-8ef4-8b182445d370>
>
I could try to squeeze some better and more specific info out of the
AI, but I would need a clue as to what you are looking for.  I can
also ask other AI's and/or reword the request.  I don't care about
what you're trying to prove.  Just what information you need to prove
your point.

>
>
I saw what you wrote, and I wondered how many of the in and out
numbers were registered voters rather than just people.
>
Because:
>
The fact that in recent years many non-citizens have been allowed
entry nto the country and many of them are in California.
>
As for the mover's numbers, I'm thinking most were families. At any
rate, California recently lost a congressional seat, so they are
bleeding registered voters.
>
-- C'est bon
Soloman

>
Small point-
>
Our Constitution says Congressional apportionment is counted by 'persons', not 'citizens' nor 'registered voters'. That's taken to mean 'all and sundry':
>
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington- secrets/3215856/not- voting-migrants-give-democrats-14- electoral-votes/
>
>

 You can thank slave owners for making sure non-voting residents were countable for representation purposes.
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise

Maybe maybe not.
Check the preceding correspondence before the Constitution and the issue of significant noncitizens was unaddressed so 'persons' was not recognized as problematic.  Originally, representational apportionment did not include enslaved persons at all and the thinly populated southern States refused to join the union, demanding full count of non voting enslaved people (while maintaining their chattel non-person status). Their utterly despicable position was firmly held.
All compromise is distasteful (see all the news this week on this dog's breakfast budget) but this was surely the worst. Deeply offensive, but absolutely necessary at the time.
Oh, and rectified 83 years later- a blink in human history.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971