How did we come to this? Can’t even ask a citizenship question?

1. 81

   jackclee lmposted 5 years ago

   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … izens.html
   
   The Census is conducted anonymously every 10 years as dictated by our Constitution. Yet, in 2019, we are debating whether we can ask if someone is a citizen or not?
   If we can’t ask this simple basic question? What is the point of taking a census?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The point of taking a census is to accurately determine how many people are living in the United States.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Is it?  Or is it to count the number of Americans in the country.
         
         Considering it is used extensively for such things as voting districts, school funding, federal funding for most welfare monies given to states, etc. it seems far more useful to count Americans, not foreign citizens without rights to any of that.

         replyreport
      2. 81

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         True, so what is wrong with asking in addition how many are citizens, how many are undocumented? How many are legal immigrants?
         It seems to me, the answer to those questions will settle the current immigration debate...no? Is it a crisis or not? We are told there are 12 million undocumented...what if that number is actually 50 million?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I already stated I personally have no strong feelings for or against asking the question. Since a judge recently ruled against allowing it, there must be legal merits against it.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Not necessarily, we have activist judges sitting on the bench who ruled on anything except the Constitution.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  If the legal merits used in the ruling are faulty, then I'm sure the decision will be overturned by our conservative-majority Supreme Court.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Good, I am glad we have a Conservative Supreme court who will over rule the 9th circuit 90% of the time...

                     replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      jackclee, at the most basic and strictly interpreted level the answer to your question is because our Constitution states its purpose is to count persons, not citizens.
      
      If your inferred question is "Why shouldn't we ask the citizenship question?" then more levels come into play.
      
      To avoid confusion, I do support asking the question. And we have asked it until the 2010 Census. But it was only asked of a sampling of households, (damn, seems odd not saying Americans there),  instead of all households.
      
      A Census affiliate, the American Communities Survey, (ACS), has been asking that question annually since 2005. Albeit also as a sampling of households instead of all households.
      
      To reframe your question, I think it could be asked that; "If we have been asking that question for Census counts until 2010, (making 2020 only the second census without it), and we annually ask that question now in the affiliate ACS form, why is it a problem to expand the question to all census households instead of just a sampling of households?
      
      I think the answer, for both sides of the argument, is politics. And I also think the argument to include the question is the right one - when you consider more than just the basic level of the Constitution's wording of "person." Considering all the governmental efforts now informed by Census numbers, I think it is a valid question to include.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Agree 100%

         replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   That's actually very funny. We want to get a clear picture of the number of citizens in the United States but we can't ask if you are a citizen of the United States. Smells like a Democrat's dream census.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I can see that you are pretty "impartial" about the issue.
      
      I am a Democrat and I think that it is silly to assume that none of us are interested in an accurate census.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe I'm not impartial, but I'm not willfully blind either.

         replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

   I don't have strong feelings one way or another about asking that question. Apparently, there are legal merits against it, though, since a judge just ruled against it. Not being a legal expert myself, I trust he/she knew what he/she was doing.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think so.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Darn.  I deleted it ("was it a ninth circuit court?) because I wanted to add to it before any replies.  Sorry about that - I'll keep going with some information.

            replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It was a court in San Francisco (where else).  The complaint appears to be that not counting foreign citizens will reduce California's representation in Congress and will reduce federal fund given to California.
      
      Given California politics re: illegal aliens, both complaints could be true.  But so what?  It strikes me that having a lot of illegal aliens in a state should NOT have anything to do with the number of House members, and should NOT have anything to do with entitlement funding to the state.
      
      So yeah, it looks like another liberal judge making calls based on politics rather than law.  (it has already passed one judge, just as you say.)
      
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trial-begi … -question/

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, ofcourse, if it's a decision you don't agree with, it's a liberal judge "making calls based on politics rather than law." That never happens in reverse, I'm sure.
         
         All that aside, I am not interested in arguing about it because I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Can't agree or disagree because I don't know the law.
            
            But if illegals or other foreign citizens are being used to determine the makeup of congress then, legal or not, to me that is a problem.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Yep, and census results that take into consideration people that are here who AREN'T supposed to be represented are thus inaccurate.  I don't CARE that a judge had a problem with this, the logic is so clear cut that it's hard to see how there can possibly be a divide on this, or how it can even be a question.
               
               It's astounding to me that anyone perceives a problem with asking a question about citizenship on the census.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL  It isn't hard at all to see how there can be a divide - it's about political power and money, and whatever brings more of either or both is a winner.  To the one that gets it anyway; others will disagree, thus the divide.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Sure, a divide based only upon the pursuit of power/wealth, a divide that pushes aside concerns of law and order, and of constitutional government.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        You got it.

                        replyreport
   3. 89

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hey there PrettyPanther. I think those legal merits might not be what you thought.
      
      In my Google journey to find out more about this topic, I came across that Federal judge's ruling. He did not rule on the legality of the question, or of including it. He ruled on Commerce Secretary Ross' actions and explanations for adding the question.
      
      Judge strikes down Trump administration's plan to add a citizenship question
      
      But the "legal merits" of the question and its addition to the Census will be addressed soon enough. The Supreme Court has accepted the case.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Good clarification.

         replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         It will indeed be interesting.  The judges decision, from your link, seems to be that Ross had "something to hide" in his motives for the change, and that's about it.
         
         All of the other complaints - ACLU, Dale Ho, Marc Morial, etc.) appear to center on using the number of "immigrants" (read "foreign citizens") to determine the makeup of congress and federal funding to states with large numbers of foreign citizens.  Neither of which makes sense at all to me, for neither argument should be of any concern whatsoever.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I think the Court will rule for the administration. Given that even now we still ask the citizenship question every year, (on the ACS), and that as a Constitutional point the purpose was to determine state representation, I don't see the anti-question side as having a valid argument.
            
            Would they say it is okay to improperly include the question in sampling surveys, but not complete surveys?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I think so, too, but that's because I see the SCOTUS far more concerned with the law, and the intent of the law, than with political concerns.  Those concerns intrude way more than I'd like, but nothing like it does in courtrooms in very liberal states.

               replyreport