I have no problem with a citezenship question being asked

@redredred It’s neither American nor UnAmerican - those are silly labels to even bring into this.

@redredred The dumtards are afraid if we know how many citizens vs illegal aliens are here someone might notice there are millions of illegals who are obviously voting. We all know they do but to have an actual count would surprise a lot of people and it would result in citizens demanding a foolproof way to prevent illegals from voting.

Silly labels you say? One of the cartoon character usual suspects just showed up with some label based drivel! 😂@QuixoticSoul

@QuixoticSoul Actual legal status is not a silly label. Its fair to note the actual legal status of people living here and its hard to understand why people would not want that information known.

@redredred Yeah “UnAmerican” or it’s implied opposite is a silly meaningless label to use in this context.

@QuixoticSoul I didnt use the semantic opposite of "unAmerican" anywhere in my comment and that term is a perfectly descriptive adjective to describe what the court ruled. Can you read carefully?

Taking this on a tangent: but one of my pet peeves are people on both left and right defining who are “real Americans”. Where the answer usually is: those that agree with me. @QuixoticSoul

@luckranger71 Real Americans are people with real legal status as citizens. Absent that, you're not an American.

@redredred Do you understand the concept of “implied”? If you had used it, it wouldn’t be much of an implication now would it?

The court ruled that the question was Unamerican? Then they are the retards, and you have my apologies. They’re supposed to concern themselves with whether something is [i]constitutional[/i] or not, instead of dabbling in emotionalism.

@redredred Nobody is calling non-citizens American here, legal or not 🤷‍♂️

Strange direction to try and take this in.

@QuixoticSoul First, find where what I wrote contains such an implication. When you give up on that futile effort, then understand that when the court ruled that Trumps reasoning for the question was inadequate, that was closer to "unAmerican" than "unconstitutional"

@redredred Well it's nice to see you two in complete agreement then, a little harmony - it is a pretty silly tactic to use.

[quote]when the court ruled that Trumps reasoning for the question was inadequate, that was closer to "unAmerican" than "unconstitutional"[/quote]
No. Not even remotely.

[quote]Roberts said that under a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal government is required to give a reasoned explanation for its actions. Roberts said the sole stated rationale - enforcement of the Voting Right Act - “seems to have been contrived” and was “more of a distraction.”

“We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decision-making process,” Roberts wrote.

“Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise,” Roberts added. [/quote]
They simply called them liars.