Question - Citizenship Question for Census

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Please post where I suggested that.

Post number 9

 

[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.

For the millionth time, non citizens do not vote. If people who do not vote are determining the direction of states and our country, there is something wrong with that state or our country. Look to yourself.

They are giving unequal representation by being included in a census that determines representation.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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?

we need to know who is a citizen and who is not.

The census does not tell us "who" just how many. The individual data collected from the Census cannot be shared with any other agency.

Only the aggregate data is available. This has withstood many court challenges.

Why are the Democrats SOOOO afraid of the citizenship question?
What's the big deal?
It has been on the census in the past.

 

[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.

What is your purpose? If it does not separate the number of illegals from legal immigrants, why bother with the question?

So we know how many people in the country are or are not citizens. I thought that was clear.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

we need to know who is a citizen and who is not.

The census does not tell us "who" just how many. The individual data collected from the Census cannot be shared with any other agency.

Only the aggregate data is available. This has withstood many court challenges.

Why are the Democrats SOOOO afraid of the citizenship question?
What's the big deal?
It has been on the census in the past.

and it has been absent for 70 years and the question asked before then was different than it is being asked now.

 

[iceberg]

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.

They are not getting all the benefits of citizenship. That is just a strawman. Our Constitution says that everyone that pays taxes is counted towards apportionment of Representative.

If you do not like this, then we have a system in place to change the Constitution.

“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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
— U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2

now how do we know if we don't ask?

By getting proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

but now you're counting them in how many votes a state may get, or what representation they have. again - it's spelled out in the amendment i provided. if they cannot vote for these people/offices, then their being here should not be counted either as a benefit to that state that has them.

you are ignoring the first sentence of what you posted. IT clearly says the "WHOLE" number excluding those not taxed.

The part you are focusing on is just who can vote, not the apportionment of Representative

correct. but what i am getting at is with this "population" number, will it also take EC votes away from smaller states and give them to california because of "pure population"?

i think we're on 2 different tracks. not really worried about getting another useless congress-person in the mix, but more should CA get a stronger foothold on the Presidential election due to a high # of people who simply can't vote?

 

[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.

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?

we need to know who is a citizen and who is not.

The census does not tell us "who" just how many. The individual data collected from the Census cannot be shared with any other agency.

Only the aggregate data is available. This has withstood many court challenges.

Why are the Democrats SOOOO afraid of the citizenship question?
What's the big deal?
It has been on the census in the past.

hmmm - it would appear yes and no.

FACT CHECK: Has Citizenship Been A Standard Census Question?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

it's obvious that the Dirty Dems are cheating again

 

[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.

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.

How do you plan to determine if they are here illegally? Ask them?

 

[iceberg]

it's obvious that the Dirty Dems are cheating again

they are protecting their base in the same manner we all would most of the time.

the question is - are they using this as a "representation" ploy so it won't be asked so the final # *will* be used as designed in congressional representation, HOWEVER, it will also be used for EC votes.

they are shouting for 1 fear and moving attention away from their primary goal - more power to elect the president of their choice by using #'s to game the system.

 

[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.

How do you plan to determine if they are here illegally? Ask them?

how do you make sure their "being counted" won't be used to also gain EC votes for these states? Trust them?

 

[OldLady]

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.

They are not getting all the benefits of citizenship. That is just a strawman. Our Constitution says that everyone that pays taxes is counted towards apportionment of Representative.

If you do not like this, then we have a system in place to change the Constitution.

“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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
— U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2

now how do we know if we don't ask?

When the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as being here "illegally." So maybe it DOES need to be reworded a bit.

 

[OldLady]

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.

How do you plan to determine if they are here illegally? Ask them?

how do you make sure their "being counted" won't be used to also gain EC votes for these states? Trust them?

How has it been figured out every other time the census has been taken?

 

[Care4all]

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.

It is illegal for the census to share any of its individual information with ICE or anyone else for 70 years. But who is going to trust that with Wilbur Ross in the driver's seat?

No kidding! Or with Trump, who has tested every law on the books, with our tax dollars, in the Courts!!! And who believes the President is above the law.... Under any normal presidency, the regulations with protections could be trusted.... not this one. Republicans KNOW this will reduce the population count, make it inaccurate, primarily in poor districts

 

[iceberg]

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.

They are not getting all the benefits of citizenship. That is just a strawman. Our Constitution says that everyone that pays taxes is counted towards apportionment of Representative.

If you do not like this, then we have a system in place to change the Constitution.

“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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
— U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2

now how do we know if we don't ask?

When the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as being here "illegally." So maybe it DOES need to be reworded a bit.

and that's what i would like to see - us work together to identify the goal and change as it as have done in the past for the proper reasons.

indians being only 3/5ths of a person. not counting women. both of these were changed over time and we need to separate this and determine if simply being in the US in any shape form or fashion means you are represented *AND* if you should also gain an advantage in EC votes for people who by definition cannot vote.

clear it up to where they gain representation, enforce that they are NOT counted for voting purposes.

but how do you do that w/o asking?

 

[iceberg]

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.

How do you plan to determine if they are here illegally? Ask them?

how do you make sure their "being counted" won't be used to also gain EC votes for these states? Trust them?

How has it been figured out every other time the census has been taken?

doesn't look like it ever really came up. now that it has we need to address it for our overall health and long term success. not done to give one side or the other an advantage, today.

 

[kyzr]

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.

How do you plan to determine if they are here illegally? Ask them?

I'd ask them for their SS numbers and a copy of their latest IRS income tax form's 1st page listing all dependents and their SS numbers.

 

[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.

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.

For the millionth time, non citizens do not vote. If people who do not vote are determining the direction of states and our country, there is something wrong with that state or our country. Look to yourself.

They are giving unequal representation by being included in a census that determines representation.

Everyone in this country pays taxes -- property taxes through their rent if they don't own. Sales taxes. Road use taxes every time they drive through a toll or buy gas. The list goes on and one.
The easy answer is, crack down on illegal immigrants and there are a lot of things we need to do in order to be successful. It's not going to be pretty for awhile, but in ten years, for the 2030 census, this would not be such a big deal.

There are not going to be a lot of changes in the apportionment of reps, at least not according to the prognostications I saw. A lot of this is just more trash talking and making a huge deal out of illegals so Trump can get his Wall.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Please post where I suggested that.

Post number 9

And here it is ladies and gennilmin!

"Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate."

I just know you're dying to explain how this constitutes favoring ignoring a law.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Please post where I suggested that.

Post number 9

And here it is ladies and gennilmin!

"Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate."

I just know you're dying to explain how this constitutes favoring ignoring a law.

The law states they have to be sent out by 1 April. Do wait till Dec 31 would be ignoring the law.

that was not too complicated.