Are noncitizens really supposed to be represented in Congress though?
The Constitution specifies that Congressional representation is based on “the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed”. That means noncitizens get counted as well.
Interesting—turns out SCOTUS just ruled on this last year:
https://washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/4/supreme-court-illegals-count-apportionment/
If this helps Democrats, I’m obviously not exactly going to dedicate my life to opposing it. But the amateur lawyer in me finds it very dubious indeed.
That wasn’t about Congress. That was about whether states are permitted to count non-citizens when doing their own apportionment for state districts. I don’t think it went into whether state legislative districts are required to count non-citizens.
For Congress, the Constitution clearly says that non-citizens count when determining how many representatives each state gets, but I don’t know if the Constitution has ever been held to require that they count when drawing the lines.
“Clearly”? A close reading of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment leads me to doubt very much whether it was intended to mean that, or that 19th century SCOTUS would have interpreted it that way.
How does it help Dems? Those counted non-citizens have no voting power. If anything I’d think it helps whichever prevailing party is elected in that state given that it potentially increases their legislative power.
Hey, at least the white house is taking the American public’s opinion seriously and trying to get their ownpolling data with totally honest and not remotely leading questions.
Re: the census. It’s sometimes hard to remember this, but the census has a LOT more uses than simply partisan apportionment of legislative districts. On those, it’s best to know who is actually living there, never mind whether they “should” be there or not.
It’s always best to have facts to work with, after all.
Apportionment.
nm
If undocumented aliens are not counted in the Census, do they officially not exist? 
True. My mother was a professor of sociology and frequently used census tract data.
In redistricting and census-based resource-allocation terms, yes.
The specific text is “counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed”. Noncitizens aren’t Indians not taxed (a category which no longer exists), so unless you can establish a definition of “person” that requires holding US citizenship, then noncitizens are clearly persons to be counted towards a state’s Congressional representation.
(It was a joke. 
)
The key IMO is how to interpret “in each state”, although “Indians not taxed” provides a hint. I take it from your very literal interpretation that, in the case of a “Red Dawn” scenario, you would count the invading army?
Is it worth it to count people you’re trying to kill?
An invading force isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of US law, so no, they wouldn’t be tallied even assuming they were willing to fill out the forms. A noncitizen resident is not, however, an invader.
“Noncitizen resident” sounds like someone with a green card. Again, though, this is not my hill to die on. I just raise an eyebrow at the casual certainty of the assertion that it is completely uncontroversial to interpret the 14th Amendment that way.
But all the other 19th century institutions did interpret it that way. Even before the 14th Amendment, I don’t think there was ever any attempt to exclude free non-citizens when deciding on apportionment.