Census will not have Citizenship Question
[Headline from DRJ]
The Hill — Trump administration drops citizenship question from 2020 census:
The Trump administration said Tuesday it was dropping a citizenship question from the 2020 census, days after the Supreme Court ruled against the question’s inclusion.
President Trump had initially said that he wanted to delay the decennial census as his administration continued to push for the question to be included in the 2020 survey.
But that effort appears to be over, after a Justice Department lawyer said the decision was made to start printing census materials without the question included.
— DRJ
In 1998 over 600 illegal immigrants voted for Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. No one went to jail. No one paid a fine. Although their votes were nullified in that instance, the illegal vote is still significantly more numerous than my vote.
Harmon Ward (2515b2) — 7/2/2019 @ 4:42 pmWhy am I not legal considered disenfranchised?
“legally”
Harmon Ward (2515b2) — 7/2/2019 @ 4:43 pmIt’s not as if people tell the truth on their census forms, anyway. Obama didn’t.
Munroe (cecc7b) — 7/2/2019 @ 4:58 pmHalf of the eligible voters did not vote in the last Presidential election. Eighty percent (80%!) of the registered voters did not vote in Chicago’s recent mayoral election. Think of illegals voting as “doing the jobs Americans don’t want to do”.
nk (dbc370) — 7/2/2019 @ 5:44 pmObviously, Trump didn’t want the census to interfere with his hiring of illegal immigrants, and giving them fake documents, to do menial yardwork and janitorial service at his bankrupt hotels.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 7/3/2019 @ 4:31 amMy wife was injured in an accident caused by an illegal immigrant. The car she was driving was totaled. Not controlling our borders and our electoral process has hurt her and my family in ways you cannot imagine. Illegal immigration makes every problem we have in this country worse.
Harmon Ward (84087f) — 7/3/2019 @ 6:34 amI am sorry that happened, Harmon, and I agree. I hope your wife is ok.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/3/2019 @ 6:54 amIllegals voting is tangential, if not entirely chimerical, in this case. What’s troublesome about this opinion is the application of the Administrative Procedures Act which makes regulations by a prior Administration “super-precedents” not to be changed without court approval. Really Deep State.
It also shows the difference between an intelligent and competent President, namely Obama, and a demented orangutan surrounded by feckless lickspittles, namely Trump. From 1950 to 2010, the citizenship question was not on the short census form but it was on the long census form. In 2010, the Obama administration did not take the question off the long form. Obama got rid of the long form altogether, and said that the Annual Community Survey which has been sent to 3.5 million households since2005 and does ask the citizenship question was good enough. That’s how you get things done instead of just tweeting about them.
nk (dbc370) — 7/3/2019 @ 7:28 amI honestly don’t see what difference it makes.
Apportionment, per the constitution, is not based on the number of citizens.
Also, obviously, “non-citizen” does not mean “illegal immigrant”.
In short, this census question would not do a thing to solve our illegal immigration problems. It was just a shiny object brandished to gratify TrumpWorld by giving the (false) appearance of actually doing something.
Instead, as nk points out, it merely highlights yet again this administration’s unfitness to govern.
Dave (1bb933) — 7/3/2019 @ 8:12 amAt best it would have spurred some wild goose chase raids on abandoned houses, maybe some workplace raids where the “jefe” was a real SOB to his charges.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 7/3/2019 @ 8:24 amTo me, the citizenship questions matter because they help us know who is living here instead of guessing. We make policy and practical decisions based on the Census. We shouldn’t be guessing because some information is politically incorrect.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/3/2019 @ 8:38 amLook at all the ways the Census matters — not just for the federal government, but also for state and local governments.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/3/2019 @ 8:42 amI agree, DRJ. And so does Congress. It authorized a citizenship question. The best way to count things is one by one, not by statistical sampling which is what both the long census form and the Annual Community Survey are.
nk (dbc370) — 7/3/2019 @ 8:48 amThanks DRJ. She eventually recovered. Until the day she died she would tense up and throw her arm across my chest, to protect me, when she heard brakes squealing. The accident happened 20 years ago. The crisis on the border has been part of our lives for decades, and it has not made our life better.
Harmon Ward (2515b2) — 7/3/2019 @ 9:00 am9. Dave (1bb933) — 7/3/2019 @ 8:12 am
Apportionsho of the House of representatives between the states.
They were hoping they could get a court to rule that apportionship within a state, both of Congessional disrttricts, ad the state legislature (as well as any munipality or county that had districts) could be based on the number of citizens because there the principle of equal numbersper district is based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, so they could argue doesn’t that mean eligible voters? but without data broken down by Census tract, you couldn’t apportion on that basis.
Of course you could use other things to apportion by besides number of citizens or total population in the last year ending in a zero:
C. Number of eligible voters (not the same as citizens – children and some other people are disqualified)
D. Number of registered voters
E. Number of people who actually voted in a prior election or combination of elections
F. Number of people who vote in that election (which would mean something other than sigle member first past the post districts.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 7/3/2019 @ 9:23 amWhat I discovered today is that they wanted to ask more than just who was a citizen of he United States
They wanted to know the reason someone was a citizen (presumably for reasons of economic analysis – or maybe this was what the old question was.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/trump-census-citizenship-question.html
So it would have looked something like this:
“Is this person a citizen of the United States?” (check one box)
1. Yes, born in the United States,
2. Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas.
3. Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
4. Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization
5. No, not a U.S. citizen,
I wonder if everyone would even be able to get that right. Someone born in Hawaii before it became a state was born in the United States, but Puerto Rico is not part of he United States.
Wouldn’t it be better to say:
“in what is now one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia”
AND
“an unincorporated territory of the United States, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas.”
On second thought, maybe choice one would be better this way:
“born in one the 50 states or the District of Columbia” (persons born in Alaska or Hawaii before they became a state should check this box)
They also should have clarified naturalization. Children get naturalized when their parents are, but do not swear an oath or go through any procedure. Also clarified the status of the Panama Cana and various military bases outside the United States by saying that’s born outise he United states. of a U.S. citizen parent or parents.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 7/3/2019 @ 9:31 amPeople in favor of “voter ID” have been trying to confuse people about that for years.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 7/3/2019 @ 9:32 amCongress authorized the Secretary of Commerce to devise questions, but nobody expected this, or there would have controversy in Congress when the appropriation bill for the Census came up.
Also, Wilbur Ross couldn’t be honest.
It;s nto actally good that the clock ran out on this because now maybe it would be very hard to add or subtract questions. The people who opposed that had a point.
In the current political climate it would lead to an undercount – and if strong efforts were made to avoid it, an overcount.
Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8) — 7/3/2019 @ 9:36 am