Trump signs order targeting undocumented immigrants in the US census

[jimrtex]

Link to Trump's "memorandum"

For the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.

Seems to contradict the plain text of the 14th Amendment. In fact, I'm not sure there's even any good-faith argument that it doesn't contradict it. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time & time again: the Constitution very purposely uses both "persons" & "citizens."

The apportionment count does not include temporary visitors, even though they are recognized as persons. The memorandum also would not exclude permanent resident aliens (i.e. who have a lawful immigration status).

[Badger]

Why should illegal immigrants be counted when it comes to house representation

Take it up with the phrase "whole persons" in the Constitution.

They literally are not supposed to be in this country and should get 0 representation in Congress

Again, your fight is with the text of the Constitution itself. This is a brazen violation of the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you think it’s right is a different argument.

So you guys are using strict constructionist thinking when it comes to issues you like but disregard it in other areas

No, it's this mishmash of so-called original intent we disagree with.

[Progressive Pessimist]

If Trump put the amount of effort into competently responding to the pandemic that he always puts  into xenophobia, we would be in healthier shape than New Zealand under Ardern right now.

[brucejoel99]

Link to Trump's "memorandum"

For the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.

Seems to contradict the plain text of the 14th Amendment. In fact, I'm not sure there's even any good-faith argument that it doesn't contradict it. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time & time again: the Constitution very purposely uses both "persons" & "citizens."

The apportionment count does not include temporary visitors, even though they are recognized as persons. The memorandum also would not exclude permanent resident aliens (i.e. who have a lawful immigration status).

The Constitution is very clear that there's no condition on who is & isn't counted, hence why in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court (including Rehnquist & Scalia) held that "persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have. The only original condition was that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which obviously no longer applies. The fact that that condition was ever there at all demonstrates that the Framers considered this issue & decided not to make citizenship status - beyond slavery - a consideration.

This makes sense, because even if somebody is an undocumented immigrant, they're still represented by their congressional representative. They don't get a say in determining who it is, but it's still the representative's duty to represent everybody who resides in their district. Nobody goes unrepresented. And as a more practical matter, everybody in a district uses public resources. Undocumented immigrants still use roads, police services, etc., so the apportionment calculation should include everybody, regardless of voting rights, citizenship status, incarceration status, age, etc. The Framers of our Constitution set it up this way intentionally, & for a good reason.

[jimrtex]

This is logistically completely impossible to implement as well ...

The Census Bureau has got all hands full to even collect the raw population totals until October 31 and then compile the raw total population number until April 30.

With insignificant data on citizenship (mentioned above), it is impossible to create citizenless apportionment data in such a short timeframe.

At some point, the CB will simply tell Trump they cannot do it.

Case solved.

(And if Congress doesn't pass the extension by 4 months, as requested by the CB, they only have until Dec. 31 to produce the numbers ...)

That is true

I wonder if states could use a registered voter list instead to count everyone for purposes of legislative redistricting.

No, because that is not considered a legitimate base, since registration is not mandatory. There is a SCOTUS ruling on this from Hawaii, where they permitted Hawaii to use the registration list for one last apportionment.

Hawaii excludes non-permanent residents from legislative redistricting. This was aimed primarily at military personnel stationed on military bases, primarily around Pearl Harbor.

The redistricting commission has wrestled with this issue in recent decades, at one time deciding it was too hard to do, and was unconstitutional. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that they had to do so.

What they currently do is get administrative records from the DOD. The DOD has up to three states they can use (one is for state income tax purposes, one is where the service member resided before enlistment, and is where they are stationed). Lots of service members claim Texas, Florida, or Washington because they don't have state income taxes.

Hawaii reasons that if you aren't paying Hawaii income taxes, you are temporarily residing in Hawaii only because you were ordered to, and have no intent to stay upon separation. They also exclude alien students - though only the public universities cooperate. Hawaii has a relatively large student population from Pacific Island countries who may not have any universities of their own.

The Alaska Constitution has similar provisions, but are ignored. At statehood, military probably represented 10% of the population, perhaps even more of the adult population.

Kansas does not count college students at their college. I'm not sure how they adjust.

It is clearly constitutional to base legislative elections on equal numbers of potential voters (citizens over 18). If proportional representation were used, you would not give a voter additional votes if they had children, or (formerly) slaves or were married. Why should someone have more votes if there a lot of children or non-citizens in their neighborhood?

The question is whether you can measure that population accurately to draw districts.

[lfromnj]

This is logistically completely impossible to implement as well ...

The Census Bureau has got all hands full to even collect the raw population totals until October 31 and then compile the raw total population number until April 30.

With insignificant data on citizenship (mentioned above), it is impossible to create citizenless apportionment data in such a short timeframe.

At some point, the CB will simply tell Trump they cannot do it.

Case solved.

(And if Congress doesn't pass the extension by 4 months, as requested by the CB, they only have until Dec. 31 to produce the numbers ...)

That is true

I wonder if states could use a registered voter list instead to count everyone for purposes of legislative redistricting.

No, because that is not considered a legitimate base, since registration is not mandatory. There is a SCOTUS ruling on this from Hawaii, where they permitted Hawaii to use the registration list for one last apportionment.

Hawaii excludes non-permanent residents from legislative redistricting. This was aimed primarily at military personnel stationed on military bases, primarily around Pearl Harbor.

The redistricting commission has wrestled with this issue in recent decades, at one time deciding it was too hard to do, and was unconstitutional. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that they had to do so.

What they currently do is get administrative records from the DOD. The DOD has up to three states they can use (one is for state income tax purposes, one is where the service member resided before enlistment, and is where they are stationed). Lots of service members claim Texas, Florida, or Washington because they don't have state income taxes.

Hawaii reasons that if you aren't paying Hawaii income taxes, you are temporarily residing in Hawaii only because you were ordered to, and have no intent to stay upon separation. They also exclude alien students - though only the public universities cooperate. Hawaii has a relatively large student population from Pacific Island countries who may not have any universities of their own.

The Alaska Constitution has similar provisions, but are ignored. At statehood, military probably represented 10% of the population, perhaps even more of the adult population.

Kansas does not count college students at their college. I'm not sure how they adjust.

It is clearly constitutional to base legislative elections on equal numbers of potential voters (citizens over 18). If proportional representation were used, you would not give a voter additional votes if they had children, or (formerly) slaves or were married. Why should someone have more votes if there a lot of children or non-citizens in their neighborhood?

The question is whether you can measure that population accurately to draw districts.

What if a state like Georgia did it as they have automatic voter registration ?

[jimrtex]

Only a mindless partisan hack would oppose this

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives 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."

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), whose majority included Rehnquist & Scalia: "Persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have.

So either you're suggesting that Rehnquist & Scalia were partisan Democrats (since they would oppose this), or you're wrong. Which one is it?

In that decision, the SCOTUS made a distinction between "the people" as used in the 4th Amendment, and "persons", in essence saying that persons who were not a member of the people were not entitled to protection against illegal search and seizure.

[brucejoel99]

Only a mindless partisan hack would oppose this

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives 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."

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), whose majority included Rehnquist & Scalia: "Persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have.

So either you're suggesting that Rehnquist & Scalia were partisan Democrats (since they would oppose this), or you're wrong. Which one is it?

In that decision, the SCOTUS made a distinction between "the people" as used in the 4th Amendment, and "persons", in essence saying that persons who were not a member of the people were not entitled to protection against illegal search and seizure.

Okayyy... and? The 14th Amendment entitles "persons" (not just "the people," but "persons") to be counted for the purposes of congressional apportionment. SCOTUS said "persons" are just human beings, & on that basis, the 14th Amendment entitles all human beings in each state to be counted for the purposes of congressional apportionment. Pretty open-&-shut case here.

[Koharu]

It doesn't matter to Trump whether it holds up in court or not. This is red meat being tossed to those of his base who rabidly support everything Stephen Miller does. It's about looking "strong on illegal immigration," which is also now coded language for white supremacy. If it doesn't get upheld, wow, how horrible is the US and we need Trump to keep us safe. If it does get upheld, woohoo, Trump saved us from the dirty, flea-bitten caravans, no one else is as "strong on immigration" as he is!!

[lfromnj]

Oh yes wanting to end rotten boroughs is now white supremacy.
Give me a break!

(I agree it's almost certainly not constitutional for congressional districts  just stick to that )

[jimrtex]

Link to Trump's "memorandum"

For the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.

Seems to contradict the plain text of the 14th Amendment. In fact, I'm not sure there's even any good-faith argument that it doesn't contradict it. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time & time again: the Constitution very purposely uses both "persons" & "citizens."

The apportionment count does not include temporary visitors, even though they are recognized as persons. The memorandum also would not exclude permanent resident aliens (i.e. who have a lawful immigration status).

The Constitution is very clear that there's no condition on who is & isn't counted, hence why in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court (including Rehnquist & Scalia) held that "persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have. The only original condition was that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which obviously no longer applies. The fact that that condition was ever there at all demonstrates that the Framers considered this issue & decided not to make citizenship status - beyond slavery - a consideration.

Did you actually read the memorandum?

If someone is visiting the United States are they a non-person?

[jimrtex]

Only a mindless partisan hack would oppose this

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives 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."

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), whose majority included Rehnquist & Scalia: "Persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have.

So either you're suggesting that Rehnquist & Scalia were partisan Democrats (since they would oppose this), or you're wrong. Which one is it?

In that decision, the SCOTUS made a distinction between "the people" as used in the 4th Amendment, and "persons", in essence saying that persons who were not a member of the people were not entitled to protection against illegal search and seizure.

Okayyy... and? The 14th Amendment entitles "persons" (not just "the people," but "persons") to be counted for the purposes of congressional apportionment. SCOTUS said "persons" are just human beings, & on that basis, the 14th Amendment entitles all human beings in each state to be counted for the purposes of congressional apportionment. Pretty open-&-shut case here.

The United States does not count all persons present in the United States for the purposes of congressional apportionment. It also counts some persons who are not present in the United States for purposes of congressional apportionment.

It excludes persons who are not resident in the United States, who are visiting whether for business or pleasure.

Imagine you were renting an apartment for $XY00/month for two persons, and further agree that you will pay $100 extra for each additional person beyond two.

You take an extended vacation to Europe say 3 months. You continue to pay $XY00/month. But while you are away some people break in and start living in your apartment. If a neighbor asks, they'll say Bryce and Joanne said it was OK (they apparently read an Atlas post that you had printed out). The neighbor says, "you mean BruceJoel?". They say, "yeah right, pardon by accent we're from Remulac". The neighbor really didn't know you very well, and the new neighbors don't cause much problem especially compared to some of the other neighbors, so they close the door and double bolt lock it, and install an alarm system, but otherwise ignore the intruders.

The new tenants have seven persons, a couple, their three children, a cousin, and an infant grandchild. Your landlord finds out, and charges you $500/month extra even though they were unauthorized occupants.

[brucejoel99]

Link to Trump's "memorandum"

For the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.

Seems to contradict the plain text of the 14th Amendment. In fact, I'm not sure there's even any good-faith argument that it doesn't contradict it. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time & time again: the Constitution very purposely uses both "persons" & "citizens."

The apportionment count does not include temporary visitors, even though they are recognized as persons. The memorandum also would not exclude permanent resident aliens (i.e. who have a lawful immigration status).

The Constitution is very clear that there's no condition on who is & isn't counted, hence why in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court (including Rehnquist & Scalia) held that "persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have. The only original condition was that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which obviously no longer applies. The fact that that condition was ever there at all demonstrates that the Framers considered this issue & decided not to make citizenship status - beyond slavery - a consideration.

Did you actually read the memorandum?

If someone is visiting the United States are they a non-person?

"Visiting" the U.S. is completely irrelevant to whether or not somebody resides in the U.S. If somebody is an inhabitant of a state, then - regardless of their immigration status - they are constitutionally a "person" for the purposes of congressional apportionment, yet this memorandum is attempting to exclude those inhabitants without a legal immigration status from apportionment even though they reside in the U.S., which would be blatantly unconstitutional.

The United States does not count all persons present in the United States for the purposes of congressional apportionment. It also counts some persons who are not present in the United States for purposes of congressional apportionment.

It excludes persons who are not resident in the United States, who are visiting whether for business or pleasure.

[snip]

Nobody is talking about "visitors" except you. The memorandum doesn't talk about "visitors," I didn't talk about "visitors," & nobody else except you is talking about "visitors" because this isn't about "visitors." This is about persons who ARE resident in the U.S., & this memorandum is attempting to exclude those persons who are resident in the U.S. without a legal immigration status from apportionment, which - again - is unconstitutional.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You can make an argument then illegals don’t really reside here as you need to have proper legal documentation for that .

[brucejoel99]

You can make an argument then illegals don’t really reside here as you need to have proper legal documentation for that .

Sure, you can attempt to make the argument but you - or, rather, the Trump administration - would be laughed out of court for doing so. You do not need proper legal documentation to reside in the U.S., as illegal aliens - legally speaking - are those persons who have no legal right to be here in the first place yet who are nevertheless residing here anyway.

[7,052,770]

You can make an argument then illegals don’t really reside here as you need to have proper legal documentation for that .

You "can" make any argument you want, but good luck getting the Courts to overturn a precedent even Scalia agreed with. Better to focus on getting a Constitutional Amendment if you're this passionate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why should illegal immigrants be counted when it comes to house representation

Are you going to argue that they're "Indians not taxed"?

[jimrtex]

Link to Trump's "memorandum"

For the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.

Seems to contradict the plain text of the 14th Amendment. In fact, I'm not sure there's even any good-faith argument that it doesn't contradict it. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time & time again: the Constitution very purposely uses both "persons" & "citizens."

The apportionment count does not include temporary visitors, even though they are recognized as persons. The memorandum also would not exclude permanent resident aliens (i.e. who have a lawful immigration status).

The Constitution is very clear that there's no condition on who is & isn't counted, hence why in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court (including Rehnquist & Scalia) held that "persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have. The only original condition was that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which obviously no longer applies. The fact that that condition was ever there at all demonstrates that the Framers considered this issue & decided not to make citizenship status - beyond slavery - a consideration.

Did you actually read the memorandum?

If someone is visiting the United States are they a non-person?

"Visiting" the U.S. is completely irrelevant to whether or not somebody resides in the U.S. If somebody is an inhabitant of a state, then - regardless of their immigration status - they are constitutionally a "person" for the purposes of congressional apportionment, yet this memorandum is attempting to exclude those inhabitants without a legal immigration status from apportionment even though they reside in the U.S., which would be blatantly unconstitutional.

The United States does not count all persons present in the United States for the purposes of congressional apportionment. It also counts some persons who are not present in the United States for purposes of congressional apportionment.

It excludes persons who are not resident in the United States, who are visiting whether for business or pleasure.

[snip]

Nobody is talking about "visitors" except you. The memorandum doesn't talk about "visitors," I didn't talk about "visitors," & nobody else except you is talking about "visitors" because this isn't about "visitors." This is about persons who ARE resident in the U.S., & this memorandum is attempting to exclude those persons who are resident in the U.S. without a legal immigration status from apportionment, which - again - is unconstitutional.

The memorandum specifically distinguishes between presence and residence.

Let's imagine a persons is visiting the United States on a tourist visa. Are they resident?

What if before their visa expires, they sign a one-year lease on an apartment with the intent to "reside" there. But they are still on a tourist visa. Are they resident or just present?

Then their visa expires, but they remain. You claim they magically became inhabitants, even though they were not authorized to inhabit.

Arguably, they were only visiting until they were caught.

[brucejoel99]

Link to Trump's "memorandum"

For the purpose of the reapportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census, it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.

Seems to contradict the plain text of the 14th Amendment. In fact, I'm not sure there's even any good-faith argument that it doesn't contradict it. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time & time again: the Constitution very purposely uses both "persons" & "citizens."

The apportionment count does not include temporary visitors, even though they are recognized as persons. The memorandum also would not exclude permanent resident aliens (i.e. who have a lawful immigration status).

The Constitution is very clear that there's no condition on who is & isn't counted, hence why in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court (including Rehnquist & Scalia) held that "persons" are simply human beings, irrespective of any relationship to the political community they might have. The only original condition was that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which obviously no longer applies. The fact that that condition was ever there at all demonstrates that the Framers considered this issue & decided not to make citizenship status - beyond slavery - a consideration.

Did you actually read the memorandum?

If someone is visiting the United States are they a non-person?

"Visiting" the U.S. is completely irrelevant to whether or not somebody resides in the U.S. If somebody is an inhabitant of a state, then - regardless of their immigration status - they are constitutionally a "person" for the purposes of congressional apportionment, yet this memorandum is attempting to exclude those inhabitants without a legal immigration status from apportionment even though they reside in the U.S., which would be blatantly unconstitutional.

The United States does not count all persons present in the United States for the purposes of congressional apportionment. It also counts some persons who are not present in the United States for purposes of congressional apportionment.

It excludes persons who are not resident in the United States, who are visiting whether for business or pleasure.

[snip]

Nobody is talking about "visitors" except you. The memorandum doesn't talk about "visitors," I didn't talk about "visitors," & nobody else except you is talking about "visitors" because this isn't about "visitors." This is about persons who ARE resident in the U.S., & this memorandum is attempting to exclude those persons who are resident in the U.S. without a legal immigration status from apportionment, which - again - is unconstitutional.

The memorandum specifically distinguishes between presence and residence.

Let's imagine a persons is visiting the United States on a tourist visa. Are they resident?

What if before their visa expires, they sign a one-year lease on an apartment with the intent to "reside" there. But they are still on a tourist visa. Are they resident or just present?

Then their visa expires, but they remain. You claim they magically became inhabitants, even though they were not authorized to inhabit.

Arguably, they were only visiting until they were caught.

The memorandum only mentions "presence" as follows:

Affording congressional representation, and therefore formal political influence, to States on account of the presence within their borders of aliens who have not followed the steps to secure a lawful immigration status under our laws undermines those principles.  Many of these aliens entered the country illegally in the first place.  Increasing congressional representation based on the presence of aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status would also create perverse incentives encouraging violations of Federal law.

In no way does that serve to overrule how residency - be it of a legal or illegal variety - works in this country. Authorization to inhabit is completely irrelevant.

You're not a resident if you're visiting here on a tourist visa, no. But if you then stay in the U.S. past the expiration of their visa with the intent to reside in the U.S. (i.e. no "magic" required), then yes, you're now a resident - an undocumented resident, but a resident nonetheless, & therefore eligible to be counted for the purposes of congressional apportionment.

And they're most certainly residents if they fill out the Census in the first place! You don't typically have the opportunity to fill out the Census if you're not a resident!!

Like OSR, you can make the argument that they're not residents. But the ghosts of Rehnquist & Scalia will roll over in their graves while incumbent federal judges laugh you out of court.

[ibagli]

Even if it was legal to exclude illegal immigrants, would this even comport with Utah v. Evans, which required apportionment to be on the basis of an "actual enumeration"? It sounds like the administration wants to go back and estimate based off of other records, which isn't allowed for apportionment.

[Former President tack50]

Am I the only one that thinks "whole number of persons" is phrased that way to include legal immigrants/greencard holders, but not illegal immigrants?

Presumably the US do not include tourists in its census, yet they are also "persons in the US". So why shouldn't Tourists be counted if it was truly meant to include everyone in the country?

In theory, if immigration services did their job at 100% perfection, illegal immigrants would not exist as they'd be deported once they overstay their visa or illegally cross the border.

My personal take is that legal imigrants should be counted but illegals should not be counted.

[Former President tack50]

Also, while I am not a legal expert at all, the word "residents" is not mentioned once in the 14th amendment in the slightest?

Representatives 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.

If you are going to take a broad reading of this, "whole number of persons in each State" would also include tourists and what not; not just illegals, since it does not mention residents (or citizens).

[Tender Branson]

Am I the only one that thinks "whole number of persons" is phrased that way to include legal immigrants/greencard holders, but not illegal immigrants?

Presumably the US do not include tourists in its census, yet they are also "persons in the US". So why shouldn't Tourists be counted if it was truly meant to include everyone in the country?

In theory, if immigration services did their job at 100% perfection, illegal immigrants would not exist as they'd be deported once they overstay their visa or illegally cross the border.

My personal take is that legal imigrants should be counted but illegals should not be counted.

This is the European consensus, yes.

As I have pointed out, most countries in Europe (Austria, Germany for sure, not sure about Spain) apportion electoral districts according to citizen-only population at the last census or annual population estimate.

I think this should be the case in the US as well.

Illegals cannot vote, so the states EVs should be apportioned using the citizenship data only.

The problem is that there is no sufficient citizenship data in the US. One would have to use the annual ACS data, which is based on a sample of households - not actual raw data as determined by the 10-year Census headcount.

Administrative records involving citizenship in the US is very patchy and cannot be used.

PS: tourists are not counted in a Census in any country on the planet. There is a UNSTATS (UN Statistics Authority) guideline, that clearly outlines countries must not count tourists as part of the resident population.

[jimrtex]

Even if it was legal to exclude illegal immigrants, would this even comport with Utah v. Evans, which required apportionment to be on the basis of an "actual enumeration"? It sounds like the administration wants to go back and estimate based off of other records, which isn't allowed for apportionment.

The Census intends to use administrative records to complete enumerations for some households for which no return is received.

[jimrtex]

Am I the only one that thinks "whole number of persons" is phrased that way to include legal immigrants/greencard holders, but not illegal immigrants?

Presumably the US do not include tourists in its census, yet they are also "persons in the US". So why shouldn't Tourists be counted if it was truly meant to include everyone in the country?

In theory, if immigration services did their job at 100% perfection, illegal immigrants would not exist as they'd be deported once they overstay their visa or illegally cross the border.

My personal take is that legal imigrants should be counted but illegals should not be counted.

"whole number" is to make a distinction from "three fifths of other persons" in the original Constitution. The language was retained in the 14th Amendment when the "three fifths" provision was eliminated.

The original proposed version of the 14th Amendment would have based apportionment on citizen males over the age of 21 who could vote. The northern overlords were concerned that the southern states would have more representation in Congress than they did before the Civil War, even though they did not permit Negroes to vote explicitly or used some subterfuge such as a literacy test or poll tax. They were also concerned that western states would gain representation at the expense of more settled eastern states.

At the time, it was customary for elder sons of farmers to migrate to the West. Daughters could be married off, perhaps to a widower. The father was probably in good health when the elder sons reach adulthood. The son could establish his own farm, and then attract a mate. The youngest son might reach adulthood when the father's physical strength was declining (farming is hard work, particularly with no mechanical assistance). He might also be caring for his widowed mother.

The eastern states were concerned that the western states would get the same representation for a single male farmer (or perhaps farmhand who was working to get enough cash to buy his own farm) as an eastern farmer with a wife and seven children.

So instead there is the complicated language of the 14th Amendment where the whole number is adjusted based on the proportion of adult male citizens who were enfranchised.

Congress intended for the 1870 Census to include a question about whether a male adult citizen could vote, but it was indifferently implemented because Congress never approved the form.

Logically, the Census could include a question regarding citizenship status, and then ask of male citizens over the age of 21 whether they could vote, and if not was it for reason of felony conviction or treason (the 19th and 26th amendments might be interpreted as amending the 14th amendment, so the inquiries would be made of all citizens over the age of 18).

At the time of the Constitution or the 14th Amendment the concept of illegal immigrant or even visitor was not clearly understood. It was hard to get here. Only someone of means could "visit". Such a visit might last years or even become permanent. If somebody buys the land and pulls stumps all day, are you going to be concerned that his English is limited? Someone who was of good character could be naturalized after residing in the US for a period of time.