Question - Citizenship Question for Census

[Unkotare]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

 

[Care4all]

then count them. but if not citizens, why the refusal to differentiate?

and again - if EC votes are done by total population this DOES have an impact we should look into. giving CA 5 more votes because they have a ton of people who can't vote anyway - WHY?

It comes down to one of the most basic concepts that our country was founded on...no taxation without representation.

first, i'm pretty sure that's not in the constitution in such a manner. please correct me if i'm wrong. second, do they pay "income" taxes and how does that work if no SS#? sales taxes i don't care. i'll pay those when i visit another country but i can't elect their politicians.

finally - if they *want* representation, great. they're welcome to attend their day in court to review their amnesty request and ask for it.

It is not just illegals that cannot vote, it is also every legal resident aliens...yet they all pay taxes just like you and I.

Then find some category for them to be counted. But counting millions of illegals who can't vote so you get more EC votes is wrong.

Amend the Constitution of you don't like it.

 

[debbiedowner]

Trump won't allow a census without that citizenship question, so its keep working at it until its in...

He can't stop it, it has to go on the date already picked. Research it.

 

[OldLady]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

What the court decided
In the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the Commerce Department does have the authority to add a question to the census asking respondents if they are citizens of the U.S. The conservative members of the court agreed with Roberts on that point.

Legal scholars and court watchers Thursday agreed that the Trump administration got in its own way by offering a justification that would not pass legal muster.
But Roberts took issue with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ explanation that adding the question would help enforce the Voting Rights Act. “The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave,” Roberts wrote.

This claim is ultimately what the Supreme Court took issue with, describing the reasons behind the administration’s reasoning as “contrived.” The final opinion of the court also suggested that Ross, who runs the department charged with administering the census, had plans to include the citizenship question long before that explanation. “The record shows that the Secretary began taking steps to reinstate a citizenship question about a week into his tenure,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court blocked a citizenship question from the census. Now what?

I'm not sure why the Court will give Wilbur Ross a second chance to come up with a reason for the question--that seems contrived. Or how that would happen--on appeal, I suppose. But it sounds as if no matter what the "reason," the Court has already seen evidence that Ross had an agenda to disenfranchise Hispanics from the start.

If you're confused about the case, you're not the only one, according to the article. The "experts" are arguing about it, too.

how does it disenfranchise anyone at all who is a legal citizen? if not legal, what is the problem?

not trying to be an ass - honest. just trying to understand.

The census is tasked with counting every head in the US, regardless of citizenship status or voting rights or anything else. Head count. Remember, we counted women, Native Americans and slaves too, back in the day, and they had no right to vote. Kids under 18 can't vote, and we count them. Most states do not allow felons to vote. They are counted. The census is not just to determine the # of reps in Congress. Government still wants to know how many people live where.

I don't know WHY the Democrats are so sure the citizenship question will scare people though. It doesn't ask any additional questions, just "Is this person a citizen?" There are many, many people here LEGALLY who are not citizens. Workers and students on visas. Immigrants who need to live here five years before applying for citizenship, and many immigrants and refugees who become permanent residents but choose to retain their original citizenship rather than renounce citizenship in their home country. That is their choice and many of us would take that same option, I'm sure, if the tables were turned.

So anyway, I don't know why that is such a scary question. But apparently the Trump administration thinks so too. That's why they want to ask it.

 

[Unkotare]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

The purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of the TOTAL population according to the Constitution.

And the Constitution also says, from that TOTAL population of citizens, legal and illegal immigrants, our US Representatives are allotted.... I think it is 1 congressman for about every 750,000 residents... And also many federal funds are distributed to the states by TOTAL population.

The citizen question was purposely inserted by Republicans in to the census, so that an INACCURATE count of the population would be obtained, reducing the population count, which would reduce the number of US Congressmen that the Constitution requires them to have....per resident.

This would hurt citizens that live in communities where immigrants are placed by the federal gvt... refugees that are placed by the gvt, and asylum seekers waiting their court hearing s placed in the different states...

ALSO, It hurts citizens because with an inaccurate count, their state will get less funds allotted by population, yet have all the non citizens that they have jurisdiction over, and responsibility to police, and educate etc.... giving the needy citizens less money for them to receive...

You assume no one who is not a citizen would respond. Why wouldn't legal immigrants respond? I'm sure that wanted fugitives from justice don't return the census form either. Barry 'the knuckle' Barowski, the bank robber who escaped from the Barney Frank Correctional Facility last week, probably won't be filling out a census form while sipping tea. They could include a disclaimer for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants indicating that the census info won't be shared with ICE or something like that.

 

[debbiedowner]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

But if they take non citizens out of the equation doesn't the states lose money and quite a bit? If this is so it may appease some of you on your hatred for California and New York but what about Texas and Florida? I could care less what they do but some of you want to cut of the hand that may help you one day.

 

[iceberg]

then count them. but if not citizens, why the refusal to differentiate?

and again - if EC votes are done by total population this DOES have an impact we should look into. giving CA 5 more votes because they have a ton of people who can't vote anyway - WHY?

It comes down to one of the most basic concepts that our country was founded on...no taxation without representation.

first, i'm pretty sure that's not in the constitution in such a manner. please correct me if i'm wrong. second, do they pay "income" taxes and how does that work if no SS#? sales taxes i don't care. i'll pay those when i visit another country but i can't elect their politicians.

finally - if they *want* representation, great. they're welcome to attend their day in court to review their amnesty request and ask for it.

It is not just illegals that cannot vote, it is also every legal resident aliens...yet they all pay taxes just like you and I.

Then find some category for them to be counted. But counting millions of illegals who can't vote so you get more EC votes is wrong.

Amend the Constitution of you don't like it.

show me the constitution where we allow illegals to alter our EC vote count and i'll work to change it.

you never add anything of value to a conversation, just pompom shit.

 

[Unkotare]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

But if they take non citizens out of the equation ......

You assume that it would. I know lots and lots (and lots) of legal immigrants who are not citizens and who are utterly un-phased by the prospect of such a question (which comes up for them on various forms and official communication all the time).

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Federal Census Act mandates the 1 April date. To ignore that is to ignore Fed law, which would violate the Constitution

The reference day has been bounced around more than once. The act is legally malleable, and no date appears in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

It is a Fed Law, it cannot be just ignored...or at least not if you believe in the Constitution.

As I said, legally malleable.

Which is code for "I do not like this law so I am good with my side ignoring it" .

No, it's code for "there is no such thing as 'settled law' and all can be revisited and modified within the mandates of the Constitution.

then get Congress to modify it. But do not cheer when it is ignored.

 

[iceberg]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

What the court decided
In the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the Commerce Department does have the authority to add a question to the census asking respondents if they are citizens of the U.S. The conservative members of the court agreed with Roberts on that point.

Legal scholars and court watchers Thursday agreed that the Trump administration got in its own way by offering a justification that would not pass legal muster.
But Roberts took issue with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ explanation that adding the question would help enforce the Voting Rights Act. “The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave,” Roberts wrote.

This claim is ultimately what the Supreme Court took issue with, describing the reasons behind the administration’s reasoning as “contrived.” The final opinion of the court also suggested that Ross, who runs the department charged with administering the census, had plans to include the citizenship question long before that explanation. “The record shows that the Secretary began taking steps to reinstate a citizenship question about a week into his tenure,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court blocked a citizenship question from the census. Now what?

I'm not sure why the Court will give Wilbur Ross a second chance to come up with a reason for the question--that seems contrived. Or how that would happen--on appeal, I suppose. But it sounds as if no matter what the "reason," the Court has already seen evidence that Ross had an agenda to disenfranchise Hispanics from the start.

If you're confused about the case, you're not the only one, according to the article. The "experts" are arguing about it, too.

how does it disenfranchise anyone at all who is a legal citizen? if not legal, what is the problem?

not trying to be an ass - honest. just trying to understand.

The census is tasked with counting every head in the US, regardless of citizenship status or voting rights or anything else. Head count. Remember, we counted women, Native Americans and slaves too, back in the day, and they had no right to vote. Kids under 18 can't vote, and we count them. Most states do not allow felons to vote. They are counted. The census is not just to determine the # of reps in Congress. Government still wants to know how many people live where.

I don't know WHY the Democrats are so sure the citizenship question will scare people though. It doesn't ask any additional questions, just "Is this person a citizen?" There are many, many people here LEGALLY who are not citizens. Workers and students on visas. Immigrants who need to live here five years before applying for citizenship, and many immigrants and refugees who become permanent residents but choose to retain their original citizenship rather than renounce citizenship in their home country. That is their choice and many of us would take that same option, I'm sure, if the tables were turned.

So anyway, I don't know why that is such a scary question. But apparently the Trump administration thinks so too. That's why they want to ask it.

great. count them. i've yet to say DO NOT COUNT ILLEGALS IN THE US.

count them as many times as you like. but whatever that # is does not effect the EC votes a given state has. if illegal they can't vote and should be outside of that process.

or show me any other modern country that will allow me to vote cause i am there paying a sales tax on my dinner.

 

[iceberg]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

But if they take non citizens out of the equation ......

You assume that it would. I know lots and lots (and lots) of legal immigrants who are not citizens and who are utterly un-phased by the prospect of such a question (which comes up for them on various forms and official communication all the time).

we probably care more than they do.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

do non-citizens use things like schools and hospitals and such?

 

[Unkotare]

I got news for ya, illegal immigrants are unlikely to return any census form (at least not accurately) whether this question is on it or not.

 

[debbiedowner]

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

But if they take non citizens out of the equation ......

You assume that it would. I know lots and lots (and lots) of legal immigrants who are not citizens and who are utterly un-phased by the prospect of such a question (which comes up for them on various forms and official communication all the time).

we probably care more than they do.

Oh, I don't care one way or the other just trying to see if it hurts or helps Federal funds to states.

 

[Unkotare]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

do non-citizens use things like schools and hospitals and such?

Yes they do, that's the point.

 

[iceberg]

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

But if they take non citizens out of the equation ......

You assume that it would. I know lots and lots (and lots) of legal immigrants who are not citizens and who are utterly un-phased by the prospect of such a question (which comes up for them on various forms and official communication all the time).

we probably care more than they do.

Oh, I don't care one way or the other just trying to see if it hurts or helps Federal funds to states.

and that is my point.

count them.

we can say:
Citizens of the US: X
Non-Citizens of the US: Y
Illegals: Z

we're a stat driven country, so here's more stats. but we can't lump them all together and treat them the same. they're not. nothing wrong with being "different" and not attacking illegals with this. become legal and you get more rights. we're doing all we can to simply make the process of becoming a citizen useless and that is killing us.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The reference day has been bounced around more than once. The act is legally malleable, and no date appears in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

It is a Fed Law, it cannot be just ignored...or at least not if you believe in the Constitution.

As I said, legally malleable.

Which is code for "I do not like this law so I am good with my side ignoring it" .

No, it's code for "there is no such thing as 'settled law' and all can be revisited and modified within the mandates of the Constitution.

then get Congress to modify it. But do not cheer when it is ignored.

You were the one who brought up "ignoring it", not I.

 

[iceberg]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge .......?

You don't think it might be important in setting immigration policy and fixing budgets for things like schools and hospitals and adjudication and such?

do non-citizens use things like schools and hospitals and such?

yep. and?

again - why are we putting them in the same category that drives how we elect people when they are simply not part of that process? when i go to ireland next month i'm pretty sure i'll be paying sales tax on food, entertainment, hotel and the like but i'm also pretty sure i'm not allowed to vote.

if there is a country out there that says "wow, you paid some taxes, here have all the benefits of citizenship" please point said country out.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is a Fed Law, it cannot be just ignored...or at least not if you believe in the Constitution.

As I said, legally malleable.

Which is code for "I do not like this law so I am good with my side ignoring it" .

No, it's code for "there is no such thing as 'settled law' and all can be revisited and modified within the mandates of the Constitution.

then get Congress to modify it. But do not cheer when it is ignored.

You were the one who brought up "ignoring it", not I.

That is what you are suggesting your savior in the White House do. Ignore the date set by Fed Law.

 

[depotoo]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

Remember, we are not just trying to count citizens, but everyone.

Congressional representation is based upon total numbers, not just citizens.

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

So you want non citizens to determine the direction of states and our country. Of course you do.