(CNN)It shouldn't be a controversial question: How many people live in the United States of America? But the Trump administration and their Republican water-carriers have turned it into a partisan political football by insisting on including a question about citizenship on the census forms. The result, demographers widely agree, will be a vast undercount of the American population -- to the political benefit of the GOP.So we have probably all heard by now that several states are (once again) suing the President of the United States. This time because the latest census questionnaire will include a question regarding citizenship status. Now why we wouldn't want to know which of our residents are citizens and which are here illegally is a logical mystery, but has obvious political reasoning.
The real issue, as explained by Jill Filipovic, is about Democrats losing power:
The places that will be most hurt by undercounting will be places that have higher populations of immigrants, documented and not. According to the Texas Tribune, for example, the state was projected to gain three congressional seats that it may now lose because of undercounting. And immigrants are more likely to live in blue states than red ones, meaning that this census change could kneecap Democrats in future elections.Now the lawsuit, of course, is over a federal decision that (under the separations of the constitution) really shouldn't have anything to do with the States in question. How the Federal Government wants to count citizens is a question for the Federal Government. If the states want to count their own citizenship differently, then so be it.
Many legal pundits are looking for a reason to believe that the States might win, but not many are holding up much hope of the lawsuit being successful. Apparently the states are going to argue a combination of due process (in spite of the fact that everyone gets a chance to answer the same census) as well as the emancipation proculation (which of course would be comparing the status of illegal aliens with slaves).
But the real argument appears to be that certain liberal states prefer to allow illegal aliens to live in their states, so they can inflate their congressional seats and federal funding. Without the existence of these illegal aliens (or without counting them as if they are legal citizens), their power would be diminished, and that would be bad for Democrats.
So bad, in fact, that it would force pundits like Filipovic to demand that an entire political Party can be best described as collectively a "know-nothing" Party. Filipovic proves both her intellectual prowess and maturity with her reasoning in this doozy of an article.
137 comments:
Leave it to the Left to again be confused.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
William F. Buckley Jr.
Now why we wouldn't want to know which of our residents are citizens and which are here illegally is a logical mystery, but has obvious political reasoning.
Exactly what the faux news talking heads are projecting...You are so predictable CH in what you think is real news and enjoy partisan red meat issues.....LOL
Blogger KD said...
Leave it to the Left to again be confused.
liberal logic:
it's illegal to want to know how many illegals are here illegally.
Yep.
Yet, in 2000 census we asked the same questions.
"Leave it to the Left to again be confused."
They're not confused.
They'll lie, cheat and steal to win.
2010 Obama/Hillary/warren/schumer/sanders removed it.
Without it you're collecting nada.
goddammit to hell. can you believe this shit???
Final reading on US Q4 GDP is up 2.9%, vs 2.7% growth expected
U.S. economic growth slowed less than previously estimated in the fourth quarter.
Gross domestic product expanded at a 2.9 percent annual rate in the final three months of 2017, up from the previously reported 2.5 percent.
The biggest gain in consumer spending in three years partially offset the drag from a surge in imports.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/final-reading-on-us-q4-gdp-is-up-2-point-9-percent-vs-2-point-7-percent-growth-expected.html
2.9 % 2017 GDP Revised final report.
Can't you get anything correct/???
Good job RRB.
"goddammit to hell. can you believe this shit???"
LOL. It keeps getting better and better.
So we have 2.9% GDP growth (which of course according to Paul Krugman and his disciples is only a tenth of a percentage away from the unattainable 3%) and it's considered a slow down of growth?
Representation is determined by population, so the State does have an interest in how it's counted. As do the individual citizens within the state.
They may have an interest but the constitution pretty much leaves it to Congress and the President to determine how the census is conducted.
They just have to make sure they are "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" to the best of their ability.
Which means everybody including illegal aliens if they fill out the form.
Perez was funny this morning. He was complaining about disenfranching voters who can't legally vote anyway.
s is only a tenth of a percentage away from the unattainable 3%) and it's considered a slow down of growth?
Close is only good in horse shoes and hand grenades, CH....When it gets to 3% for the entire year, get back to me K?
And KD still can't get anything correct
goddammit to hell. can you believe this shit???
Final reading on US Q4 GDP is up 2.9%, vs 2.7% growth expected
Latest gaggle of polls showing generic ballot growing for D's.....Imagine that, CH, your premature excitement reminds me of Chris Mathews dribbling down his leg.....LOLOLOL I'm sure the fluidity will continue especially with the storm brewing .....
Wednesday, March 28
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 41, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +13
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 45, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +8
2018 Generic Congressional Vote Economist/YouGov Democrats 42, Republicans 35 Democrats +7
Congressional Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 8, Disapprove 74 Disapprove +66
Direction of Country Economist/YouGov Right Direction 34, Wrong Track 57 Wrong Track +23
Yep, I failed to type, Q4.
Shame upon me.
US consumer spending up along with massive Business profits.
Can you believe this shit, the moron of kansas finally gets it correct after 3 attempts at C+P BRILLIANT
2.9 % 2017 GDP Revised final report.
Final reading on US Q4 GDP is up 2.9%, vs 2.7% growth expected
And he still acts as if he didn't get it wrong initially....typical of weak minded oafs from kansas.
Coupe.
Yep, I failed to type, Q4.
Sure you did....cover it with an excuse like all you little R's do so well...LOLOLOL
Coupe.
The place loathsome loser loretta gave her first blow job
Opie, I said I got it wrong. What more do you want?
I failed = I got it wrong.
I failed = I got it wrong.
Anonymous commie said...
2.9 % 2017 GDP Revised final report.
Can't you get anything correct/???
March 28, 2018 at 11:25 AM
Anonymous commie said...
this has got to be the most fucked up and bungled coup attempt in the history of coup attempts.
You misspelled coup....should be coupe......that would make your statement correct...idiot
March 18, 2018 at 10:20 AM
Representation is determined by population, so the State does have an interest in how it's counted. As do the individual citizens within the state.
Well I am sure they are all very interested.
But whether an individual state has the sort of legal interest that would suggest a constitutional right to sue the Federal Government to make the Federal Government do it how they would like it done is a legal question that most legal experts feel is a pretty big uphill battle.
But hey, I fully expect that someone in the 9th Circuit will decide in favor of the States, the 9th Circuit will agree... but ultimately you still need 5 USSC Justices to side with that argument.
Yet, the GDP is really good news. Right "coupe"?
Overcoming the lost years. The Millennials were not buying homes. Now they are.
democrats 2018 mid-terms strategery:
Dems to party: Go on offense with Trump’s alleged affairs
Democrats say their party should seize on President Trump’s alleged affairs with adult film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to highlight flaws in the president’s character and credibility.
whew! this is a relief. i was sure the dems were going to try and take back the house and senate by telling the american people what their policy positions were, what their ideas to grow the economy were, you know, stuff like that.
but the democrats, being the natural geniuses that they are, have chosen to go 'all-in' on attacking a guy who is not even on the ballot.
i'm left to wonder if this strategery isn't the brainchild of one of nancy pelosi's mini-strokes.
oops, forgot the link:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/380569-dems-to-party-go-on-offense-with-trumps-alleged-affairs
Any attempt to base apportionment on the number of citizens in each state would be quickly declared unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment clearly states it is to be based on the number of "persons" in each state.
It has not been used since 1950..
It's another attempt to damage our Republic.
The reign of Hope Hicks, the unflappable White House communications director and the right side of President Trump's brain, comes to an end this week, leaving a communications team bitterly divided and an impetuous president increasingly isolated.
The enigmatic aide-de-camp who has earned the ear and trust of Mr. Trump — and equally as important, his family — bridged the gulf between the president and the rest of his political staffers, many of whom he has consistently viewed with skepticism throughout his presidency.
And for a president who spends much of his time fuming at cable television or at one staffer or another, from his various chiefs of staff to his national security advisers, Hicks has stood apart in that "he genuinely likes and respects her," a source close to the president said.
Staffers are approaching the post-Hicks era with trepidation, unsure what to expect in a lawless White House with a president who thrives on chaos and resents authority, process and order. Hicks even used her standing to shield others from the wrath of Mr. Trump's explosive outbursts.
"She's the glue to the entire place," a White House source said. "She helps keep the White House from fracturing. I don't think people realize what's about to happen once she leaves."
Ghosts of communications directors past don't bode well for the future communications director. Sean Spicer served as acting communications director twice, followed by Michael Dubke's short-lived stint. And then there was Anthony Scaramucci's history making, expletive-laced, 10-day spell in the position.
Which is why even in the toxic workplace that is the White House, the backbiting surrounding the heat to fill Hick's shoes has taken staffers aback.
"Woof! This is insane," one White House staffer texted with a link to a Washington Examiner piece where unnamed sources slammed Tony Sayegh, a Treasury Department spokesman, who is in the running to replace Hicks. One of the accusations that sources called particularly cruel was that Sayegh manipulated and bullied staffers, particularly female staffers.
"Whoever attempted to plant that lie should feel ashamed. It's just an icky thing to do, particularly to someone as nice as Tony," a female Treasury source told CBS News.
Indy, you will never see CH back down on anything Trump does. The constitution has no meaning in this White House or on this blog.
Indy VoterMarch 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM
Any attempt to base apportionment on the number of citizens in each state would be quickly declared unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment clearly states it is to be based on the number of "persons" in each state. Is irrelevant. Trump wants it.
The 14th Amendment clearly states it is to be based on the number of "persons" get back to us after you read the Constitution of the United States.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
It has not been used since 1950..
except when the big dog used it in 2000.
don't feel bad alky. CNN fucked that up too. in fact, that's probably where you gpot your little factoid.
The 14th Amendment clearly states it is to be based on the number of "persons" in each state.
and the 14th also begins by defining those "persons."
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
these semantic arguments are so fucking boorish.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The 14th Amendment clearly states it is to be based on the number of "persons" get back to us after you read the Constitution of the United States.
i'm getting back to you asshole.
The Commerce Department declined to provide an opposing view. Excerpts from a memo issued late Monday by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross:
I have carefully considered the argument that the reinstatement of the citizenship question on the decennial census would depress the response rate. Because a lower response rate would lead to increased non-response follow-up costs and less accurate responses, this factor was an important consideration in the decision-making process. I find that the need for accurate citizenship data and the limited burden that the reinstatement of the citizenship question would impose outweigh fears about a potentially lower response rate.
No one provided evidence that reinstating a citizenship question on the decennial census would materially decrease response rates among those who generally distrusted government and government information collection efforts, disliked the current administration, or feared law enforcement.
Several stakeholders who opposed reinstatement of the citizenship question did not appreciate that the question had been asked in some form or another for nearly 200 years. Other stakeholders who opposed reinstatement did so based on the assumption that the data on citizenship that the Census Bureau collects through the American Community Survey are accurate, thereby obviating the need to ask the question on the decennial census.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/27/census-question-editorials-debates/33340397/
."The Kansas idiot used a Constitutional argument about the roll of the police in demonstrations. Really fucking stupid." Opie Adicted HB
Yep, I am terrible to use actual case law, USSC Decided Constitutional information to throat punch alky.
Alky hold nolongerIndy's wide hand, she needs it.
yep rat hole this was my quote which flew over your pin head!!!!
You misspelled coup....should be coupe......that would make your statement correct.
five days later and still catching assholes!!!!!
Hillary was correct in her usage of the word deplorables....
For many conservative Americans, adult-film star Stormy Daniels’s interview about her alleged affair with Donald Trump was the latest in a series of uncomfortable moments from the nontraditional president. Sixty-one percent of Republicans consider the president a good role model for children
Trump as a role model is as good as charles barkley being a role model....brilliant!!!!! An egotistical I'll fuck anything for money is now a role model for conservatives. Imagine that!!!!!!
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside"
Clearly, it doesn't include non citizens.
It's not rocket science.
hey alky,
still trying to get back to you after reading and understanding the 14th amendment of our constitution.
man, you disappear like the road runner, in a cloud of cartoon dust.
Clearly, it doesn't include non citizens.
It's not rocket science.
i can see the alky getting it wrong because he's an imbecile. but i really did figure, at least up until now, that others around here were a little smarter than that.
Actually, Rat, that sentence defines "citizens" by saying which persons are considered citizens.
"Indy, you will never see CH back down on anything Trump does. The constitution has no meaning in this White House or on this blog."
Feel free to start your own blog chicken shit.
Any attempt to base apportionment on the number of citizens in each state would be quickly declared unconstitutional.
Nobody is even considering that.
Except in the fevered minds of 9/11 truther Democrats.
"Actually, Rat, that sentence defines "citizens" by saying which persons are considered citizens."
LOL!!!!
"i can see the alky getting it wrong because he's an imbecile. but i really did figure, at least up until now, that others around here were a little smarter than that."
Nope!
Actually, Rat, that sentence defines "citizens" by saying which persons are considered citizens.
indeed it does. all 'persons' born or naturalized.
at issue here is if we ask everyone to identify in the context of that definition. you either are or are not a citizen.
period.
and that's the question that will be on the census.
rocket science it ain't.
it's a fucking binary postulate.
now then, if you want to actually debate something as opposed to delving into senseless and endless semantics, let's talk about the advantages and disadvantages to both the left and the right over the inclusion of the question.
that's where the party is here. the 14th is clear. it's senseless to waste the bandwidth debating it.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Indy, you will never see CH back down on anything Trump does. The constitution has no meaning in this White House or on this blog.
really.
as you cheered every single time captain pen and phone completely ignored the constitution. you fucking hypocrite. for chrissakes idiot, we struggling with the DACA issue precisely because your magic negro decided to ignore the unconstitutionality of his own actions, being such a fucking asshole at the time in knowing full well he was setting a trap for a future republican administration.
Any attempt to base apportionment on the number of citizens in each state would be quickly declared unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment clearly states it is to be based on the number of "persons" in each state.
Even if that was true (which isn't very clear based on a casual reading of the 14th amendment)...
The census is clearly designed to include everyone and everyone is allowed to participate in the census taking... because otherwise there would be no need to add the questions about citizenship.
So not sure where you are going with this logic? There is only an unproven perception (or assumption) that illegals would not take the census if it includes the question.
"They just have to make sure they are "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" to the best of their ability. "
Plenty of precedent that making it difficult or scaring people from registering, voting, etc (and presumably being counted by the census, since that determines representation) is an equal protection violation, when the State's interest is involved.
Typical Republican argument you made there BTW, and it always fails when challenged. It's never a matter of "they can" if they want to badly enough. Your point is to discourage their participation.
Weak Govt of Sac, CA. allowing a protester to jump on the bench of the Council meeting.
Liberals become confused again.
"Clearly, it doesn't include non citizens."
Aka = illegals.
Plenty of precedent that making it difficult or scaring people from registering, voting, etc (and presumably being counted by the census, since that determines representation) is an equal protection violation
There is nothing inherently scary about being asked if you're a citizen or resident alien.
Unless, of course, you're not suppose to be here in the first place.
Good luck trying to make an equal protection argument because certain people are intimidated because they are breaking the law.
However, in the 9th circuit you may have a shot.
WP...
The idea of a census it to gather all sorts of information.
It's not solely designed to determine how many congressional districts and electoral college votes each state garners, or how much aide they receive from the Federal Government.
If that was the case, there wouldn't be any sort of need to ask any questions, other than to confirm that a person exists and has some sort of residency. Write down a name and say you live such and such, and that's it.
Considering the importance society is placing on immigration, illegal immigration, etc... and based on the increasing number of sanctuary cities, (there about three dozen of them in 2010, and now there are almost ten times that number)... I believe that it is important to know how many illegal aliens we have, and where they live.
Wouldn't you agree that this is an important bit of information in today's society? Wouldn't you agree that it's important enough to include it on a census.
oPie a complete Moon-Calf.
I believe that it is important to know how many illegal aliens we have, and where they live. "
Yep
Just don't let illegals influence the seats of power for us US Citizens.
It's the metaphysical argument that Democrats don't want to face.
Should you really count people who are not supposed to be here in the first place?
For purposes of congressional appropriation it may not be that significant.
However blue states are steadily bleeding population to the south and west. It's a foregone conclusion that New York will lose a couple seats in the next reapportionment and even California may lose some as well.
Texas will be the big gainer as well as Florida and Georgia.
This is what the Democrats most fear. And the more immigrants they can count the more power they can keep.
Stormy's attorney just said that she would consider a settlement. Now we know the truth. This is all a shakedown for money. Even morning joe has had enough of her.
But we can be sure that cnn hasn't
It was always about money.
Common...
The bigger problem will be proving with empirical (not anecdotal) evidence that adding the question will really lower the participation rate. Without actually proving that, the legal case is probably not ultimately going to be successful.
Most Judges do not just accept arguments of opinion or speculation as valid facts... but I stress that "most Judges" will not.
Most Judges do not just accept arguments of opinion or speculation as valid facts."
Unlike nolongerIndy, jane, WP, oPie and HB, that run hot with emotion.
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 2
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.
CH, the "idea" behind it doesn't matter as much as the effect of it. The "idea" behind voter ID laws for example is to ensure that only eligible citizens are allowed to vote. But if the effect is to create hardship on certain voters, then it doesn't fly.
In the same way, if your Republicans are trying to make it harder for certain people to be counted, that won't fly either. You're trying to diminish the strength of states which are more traditionally Democratic, because more immigrants live there. "The idea" of it is just the pretext.
Logically, if "the idea of counting people" was what you're really striving for, you would want to make it EASIER for people, MORE likely to cooperate, rather than less likely.
Asking an Illegal to declare is just asking them to be honest.
create hardship "
ID Required
To rent a car
Get a passport
Receive welfare
Rent a motel room
Board a flight
Buy a gun
Buy Ammo
Endless more
But , to vote , "create hardship"
The Constitution says "persons" .
counting the whole number of persons in each State, does not say citizens, because the constitution applies to people.
Is the Left done with David Hoog, already?
The NRA ( which I am a legacy Life Time Member) is not, he has been great for our new membership drive.
Thanks David Hoog and better luck getting into college.
ID Required
To rent a car
Get a passport
Receive welfare
Rent a motel room
Board a flight
Buy a gun
Buy Ammo
Endless more
None of the above are constitutional rights with the exception of purchasing ammo. or perhaps buying any gun.
The "fear" that illegals will be counted, is overblown. The vast majority of them will declined to be counted upon the fear of being deported.
2018 Dems Message taking Shape.
100 % of Democrats voted against your tax cuts.
Impeach Trump
Repeal 2nd Amendment
The vast majority of them will declined to be counted upon the fear of being deported."
How is it that the same people the Democrats talk up as being better the any real American, will lie or dodge the US Census.
We need to get an accurate count of the Illegals.
This entire scam is not designed to assure that the count is accurate. It is designed, as did the voter identity as eligible to vote. It was specifically designed to limit the elderly African American vote in specific districts.
"This entire scam is not designed to assure"
Sure wacko.
Nonsense
The Democrats’ heads are exploding over this because they are terrified that it might be revealed that some of their districts are skewed toward non-citizens, and drawn in a way that is disadvantageous to citizens voting in other districts,” said Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. “There are many good reasons to collect this information — to understand the make-up of our population, to equalize federal and state funding, to make sure that appropriate services are available in the right places and to ensure fair apportionment of federal and state election districts, so that our votes are all equally powerful.”
Citizenship is a key demographic metric. Why would anyone not want accurate population data?
Vaughn explained, “Opponents of the citizenship question are pretending this is some new, sinister plot by the Trump administration to suppress minority votes, but in fact the question was asked on the long form up until 2000, and is currently asked on the smaller, more frequent surveys. Experts do not expect that it will depress responses to the census. More people have been resisting answering the census, but it appears that those are more likely to be people who resent government intrusion into their lives, or people trying to hide things from the government, not necessarily illegal immigrants.”
Democrats’ resistance to the citizenship question comes as no surprise as liberals want to remove any distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. They also want the benefit of more congressional districts in blue states giving them greater power in Washington.
Naturally, liberals don’t mind illegal immigrants voting — Democratic, of course — that’s why they balk at sensible Voter ID laws and support open borders.
if I said that olinsky scammers have no balls to admit the beaners hate the President and want crooked Hillary to be president after the Kenyan failure you would be wet in lust for rrb
Nonsense
Really? Perez just complained the question about citizenship on the census for will lead to "voter suppression".
So the question is, if it's illegal for non-citizens to vote, then what votes are exactly being suppress.
Most Judges do not just accept arguments of opinion or speculation as valid facts... but I stress that "most Judges" will not.
There's seem to be a concentration of judges on the 9th circuit that will. Especially if the name Trump appears on the filing.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The Constitution says "persons" .
it also defines 'persons' as citizens either born here or naturalized, alky.
it's in the very first line of the 14th. so on this particular topic you're being either intellectually dishonest or flat out fucking stupid.
which is it this time?
You're trying to diminish the strength of states which are more traditionally Democratic, because more immigrants live there.
it's not about 'more immigrants'. it's about more ILLEGAL immigrants.
"Well I am sure they are all very interested. "
When I (or lawyers) say the State has an interest, and it's in the legal or Constitutional context, I'm talking about an interest in one of the enumerated or derived rights from the Constitution.
That States have standing (this does not mean they can literally stand) regarding the Census counting is NOT going to need the US Supreme Court to make a new ruling, contrary to your rhetorical claim. It's been settled by the Supreme Court already, for instance UTAH ET AL. v. EVANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.
"you would be wet in lust"
What is it with you sex obsessed creepers?
You're either dreaming of incest or oggling over 11-14 year old girls.
it's not about 'more immigrants'. it's about more ILLEGAL immigrants.
That's the usual retort, but legal immigrants have reason to fear and they have reason to fear for their families. You might say that "their families", if some of them are here illegally or past a visa or whatever, shouldn't be here in the first place and it's their own fault if it causes them fear, and there may be some truth in that but that's beside the point. We're talking about counting every legal person, whether or not they're related to someone without legal status. THOSE people must be counted for the State, and citizens of the State, to have the representation they are entitled to.
The Census Bureau SHOULD just utilize statistical sampling to interpolate the numbers of illegal aliens, if that is a goal. Not asking every individual about his own citizenship status, but perhaps a random sampling of a small portion of them. That way any under-sampling would be slight, while it's not really necessary (nor feasible) to seek a precise quantification of the numbers of illegals.
ok wp, i get it. but i guess it begs the question - where do we have to go to get our country back?
at what point do we simply refuse to allow illegals to hold us, our nation and essentially our constitution hostage by their mere illegal presence. i mean, at some point if i come home to find a family of illegals has broken into my house and decided to live here forever, will i actually be allowed to throw them out, or will i be required to let them stay under penalty of law?
in a way i envy our youth. i'm old enough to remember when our rule of law and constitution actually had meaning. our youth today have no familiarity. all they know is that if they throw a tantrum on the national mall, the nation will take them seriously and eventually capitulate to their demands.that's where we are with immigration.
Well RRB, we don't "get our country back". People other than "us" are living here, and they always will be.
There IS a problem with the illegals and I will agree they shouldn't be here, shouldn't be allowed. But given that they are, the bigger problem is that our institutions and social structures are damaged just from having residents who are treated and viewed as something less that citizens. No civilization survives it long-term. We must either accord them rights, or remove them all. The latter is untenable so therefore ...
The Census Bureau SHOULD just utilize statistical sampling to interpolate the numbers of illegal aliens
That's against federal law as well as the Constitution.
No civilization survives it long-term.
i agree with your statement, but not with your overall premise. i worry less about having second class persons and surviving THAT, which i think we always will, and worry more about the invasion that's underway and surviving THAT which i believe ultimately we won't.
if this continues unchecked and there's no assimilation but balkanization, this nation's going to be in a world of hurt.
CH, the "idea" behind it doesn't matter as much as the effect of it. The "idea" behind voter ID laws for example is to ensure that only eligible citizens are allowed to vote. But if the effect is to create hardship on certain voters, then it doesn't fly.
There is at least some statistical analysis that can be done to show that a certain demographic will be more adversely affected by a Voter ID law, and those laws that make effort to solve that issue (such as issuing free IDs) have stood up to legal scrutiny for the most part.
Is there actually empirical evidence of what the states is suggesting (that it will under sample people). Or is it just a gut feeling that this is what would happen? I know one of the people who made this decision researched the various manners in which the Government garners information and found no actual evidence that adding that question changed the participation. Short of some serious studies proving the assumption... can you really make a legal argument on an assumption vs actual data saying differently?
While you sort of admit that such information is important, your suggestion that you can do it by "sampling" areas is exactly the sort of thing that the courts have ruled improper in the past (because sampling can be manipulated, can be biased, and can cause problems. The ACLU and others have sued successfully against certain sampling procedures that they could show cause under counting of specific groups). The bigger problem with sampling is the census should be able to accurately determine which areas of the country your illegal population resides in.
perhaps a random sampling of a small portion of them.
sounds like racial profiling
That's against federal law as well as the Constitution.
No it isn't. Estimating illegal alien numbers would be additional to their remit of counting. You have confused the reasoning why the Census cannot use statistical samplings for counting people - it's not the method that's forbidden, it's using it instead of counting population. The Census is free to utilize it to estimate how many people who have red hair, weigh more than 300 pounds, or any other estimation as long as it's not the mandated purpose.
You guys should review Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)
You're probably all thinking about " The Census Act prohibits the proposed uses of statistical sampling to determine the population for congressional apportionment purposes. " and generalizing it (incorrectly) to any use of statistical sampling.
But in the very next sentence, statute cited, the Census IS allowed to use statistical sampling for any demographic data, EXCEPT for congressional apportionment.
We must either accord them rights, or remove them all. The latter is untenable so therefore ...
- deporting them is politically untenable to some people...
- mass amnesty is politically untenable to others...
The former could conceivably be done with a change of law, while the latter could be accomplished with a strong application of current law. Not sure why you assume one is so much more plausible than the other.
Is there actually empirical evidence of what the states is suggesting (that it will under sample people). Or is it just a gut feeling that this is what would happen?
Are you objecting to the possibility itself? Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in the 2010 Census should set that objection aside. It shouldn't be necessary though, since the phenomena of minority undercounts is established and well known, through at least several decades.
You want to know reasons why it might happen? Perhaps this from the census bureau will help ETHNOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF BEHAVIORAL CAUSES OF CENSUS UNDERCOUNT OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS AND SALVADORANS IN THE MISSION DISTRICT OF SAN FRANCISCO
My only "gut feeling" about any of this is the one that tells me that Trump Republicans' main goal is specifically to under-count minority and immigrant demographics. Because trampling on those groups seems to be kind of a hobby for the modern GOP.
- deporting them is politically untenable to some people...
- mass amnesty is politically untenable to others...
LOL, I didn't mention either "politically" nor "to some people" and I don't really care. You just add that in so that you can argue against it?
It is untenable because it is practically impossible, and even some heroic effort to try to remove every undocumented person in the USA would likely cause civil strife and widespread unrest. Has nothing to do with "politically" or who might or might not agree with the idea.
My only "gut feeling" about any of this is the one that tells me that Trump Republicans' main goal is specifically to under-count minority and immigrant demographics. Because trampling on those groups seems to be kind of a hobby for the modern GOP.
the GOP has no issue with minorities and immigrants, wp.
we do have an issue with ILLEGAL minorities and ILLEGAL immigrants.
you're smart enough to know the difference, i'm sure.
WP -
There is a legitimate reason why we need to track this on the census. You agree in principal that there is a legitimate reason for it.
The fact that you believe there is an alternative reason (no matter how valid you believe it is) shouldn't really matter in a court of law.
Btw... the report you issued (which is based on assumptions from the census without the question added) wouldn't really speak to the addition of this question. It simply suggests that illegals have a tendency to not participate in general.
"the GOP has no issue with minorities and immigrants, wp." Even if that was true, the GOP has an abiding issue with the representation and voting power of those states which have high numbers of such people. The same thing applies in individual voting districts.
THAT is the point of the GOP efforts.
Use some common sense here. When the GOP wants to use Census data to determine the numbers of undocumented residents, and of course they KNOW that those methods will under-count the population of those areas, then the number of undocumented residents will ALSO be undercounted. That should be obviously counter to their purposes, to claim a FEWER number of illegals than there actually are, to MINIMIZE the problem that you say is so important to them.
But when the same methods diminish the voting power of those states or districts, which impact does common sense suggest is the real objective? Weakening the voting power of the Democratic Party, or minimizing the illegal alien problem?
The fact that you believe there is an alternative reason (no matter how valid you believe it is) shouldn't really matter in a court of law.
The reason and the effect of it is precisely what will matter in a court of law. It is precisely the reason that sampling methods are not allowed for the counting for apportionment of Representatives. Anything which intends to pressure certain people or demographics to avoid the Census is counter to the purpose of the Census, and could be struck down in court.
This may be kind of a fine distinction that people are missing, but the count of people, for apportionment, is distinct and separate from ancillary efforts to obtain demographic data. They can find out about documented/undocumented, races, poor/rich etc, but doing that cannot be allowed to disrupt the Census count. That's why I suggest a random sampling of a proportionally very small set of respondents. Even if it discourages some in that small set, it wouldn't be enough to disrupt the actual population count yet still be adequate for the numbers of undocumented that the GOP wants so badly.
What is your objection to that, or your Party's leaders' objection, other than it would NOT result in undercounts of Democratic states and voting districts?
would likely cause civil strife and widespread unrest
WP... you argue as if there is only two options: widespread deportation or widespread amnesty. You are sort of begging the question.
But either way... we could deport more people, and if that leads to strife and unrest those are social (or political) concerns, not actual tangible concerns with being able to actually follow the law.
WP... we are one of the few countries who do not ask this question on their census. If European countries can allow the question of citizenship to be on their census reports, why is it that the U.S. would be incapable?
This may be kind of a fine distinction that people are missing, but the count of people, for apportionment, is distinct and separate from ancillary efforts to obtain demographic data. They can find out about documented/undocumented, races, poor/rich etc, but doing that cannot be allowed to disrupt the Census count.
Previous court cases have determined that sampling can under-count or over-count the demographic in question?
Seems you are mixing your arguments?
You ask, why is the US different in that regard? You tell me, do you think that we would see the same objections if the questions were included during President Obama's term of office? After all, the Bureau isn't even allowed to identify individuals, nor share that information with any other person or agency, and I for one doubt that many people would have considered it a danger during that Administration. If you're honest, you'll agree with me there.
So what is different here, and it's not just the party, race and name of the President. What's different in the professed aims, the directed actions of federal agencies, the history of requesting confidential information such as personal data from voter registration, in deportations, in rhetoric, that could possibly give residents cause for alarm?
and even some heroic effort to try to remove every undocumented person in the USA would likely cause civil strife and widespread unrest.
interesting.
civil strife and widespread unrest is how we got trump. and he campaigned largely on putting an end to illegal immigration. so i guess as far as i'm concerned, rounding them up and catapulting them back over the wall might not be as disruptive as we might think.
Previous court cases have determined that sampling can under-count or over-count the demographic in question?
Seems you are mixing your arguments?
You're still missing the distinction. The ACLU might be concerned with "under-count the demographic" but that's not the issue. Under-counting the population is the issue.
Yes, previous cases including the one I cited determined that sampling can under- or over-count the population. Sampling error in a demographic is a different story.
civil strife and widespread unrest is how we got trump. and he campaigned largely on putting an end to illegal immigration.
LOL@rrb we're talking about different degrees, way beyond the good ol boys getting stirred up and voting a finger in the eye to DC.
What exactly do you think it would take, to remove all (or enough to eliminate the problem) of the illegal residents from the USA? It won't be a matter of just rounding up the bad guys, and nobody else is affected.
So what is different here
The main difference is that people who were not fans of Barack Obama were not irrational in their belief that he was inherently evil, and were not constantly paranoid that everything he did had some nefarious alternative motivation to somehow to ruin the country.
The fact that you think differently about the question today than you would have thought about it five years from now... is 100% on you.
WP...
You sort of expose the legal problem. The census bureau making a decision about the census questions should be judged entirely on merit. The same question cannot (by logic) be perfectly acceptable one day and a violation of somebody's rights the next day... simply because of who sits in the Oval Office.
What exactly do you think it would take, to remove all (or enough to eliminate the problem) of the illegal residents from the USA?
it would be massively disruptive, hugely expensive, and a world class pain in the ass for probably a year, perhaps a little longer...
...and we should begin first thing in the morning.
I think you have to put these types of questions in the context of Administration policies, but somewhere down the line you're going to come up against a "reasonable person" standard. A pivotal question might be, for example, would a reasonable person have a justified fear of answering the Census survey, if he is a member of one of the endangered demographics?
It's not "simply" who sits in the office. I don't think very many people see a personal danger simply because Trump is President. It's the constellation of Trump's threatening rhetoric, his executive orders, the policies he's put into place, the type of enforcement actions he has directed, that can reasonably cause a recent immigrant to be fearful. Not just "Trump", but all of what Trump has already done.
Okay... what you would want to do is use a "reasonable person standard" which in and of itself is a subjective question, in order to prove to a court the hypothetical assertion that enough non-citizens would not fill out a questionnaire as to cause some (as of yet non-quantitative) harm to States (because they believe they won't get credit for housing illegal aliens)
and put it up against empirical evidence from the Census Bureau that shows no tangible difference in participation between other types of surveys that have the question and surveys that don't.
While everyone conceding that the information that the Census Bureau is attempting to garner is important to know.
All because it is your opinion that a reasonable person would find a problem with the President directing ICE and other agencies to enforce immigration laws?
(I'll ignore the subjective "constellation of threatening rhetoric" as a non-serious statement coming from someone who is pretending to use a reasonable person standard).
If this is the sort of argument that works in the sort of Justice system you want, then you and I have a massive disagreement about what constitutes a "reasonable person" and a "reasonable Justice system".
If this is the best argument, then it's fairly clear why most legal experts expect the states will fail in this lawsuit.
Ah, I see that the State interest in having their representation in Congress is of trivial concern to you, since you mock it as getting credit for housing illegal aliens.
It's not "what I'd want to do" CH, it's about what the Courts do. You can mock the standard as "some hypothetical question" but that only exposes your unfamiliarity with a very commonly used standard in judicial decisions.
The rest, nah you're just trolling your own blog, I'm not going to engage in it.
that can reasonably cause a recent immigrant to be fearful.
legal recent immigrants have nothing to fear. nothing, that is, unless they're harboring illegals. but that's the point.
i'm a huge fan of legal immigrants who chose a legal path to get here, and remain on a legal path once they're naturalized.
to me, (and i'm old fashioned in this way) the only "reasonable person" is one who arrives here via the legal process and remains a law abiding citizen. the thought that we have any obligation to anyone who doesn't fit that profile is self destructive.
Anonymous wphamilton said...
Ah, I see that the State interest in having their representation in Congress is of trivial concern to you, since you mock it as getting credit for housing illegal aliens.
that's the point. it SHOULD be of trivial to no concern to anyone who's a fan of the rule of law and our national sovereignty. the left continues to amaze me with their capacity to find new and creative ways and reasons to reward bad behavior.
the "aw shucks they're already here and it would be so hard to throw them out" excuse is maddening since it does nothing to address how we stem the tide.
WP...
Generally the reasonable person standard is a hypothetical standard to which a tangible action that has already been taken is judged.
Are there actually any legal precedents for a hypothetical "reasonable person" standard to be used for some sort of "predictive behavior" as it is within the context of how you are suggesting it be used?
Generally when we look to prove something "might happen" - doesn't the court hold tangible empirical evidence in higher regard than abstract or hypothetical arguments?
In other words, considering the Census Bureau sends out a lot of surveys and considering some of those surveys include this particular question, why would you ignore the objective data regarding participation rates from those surveys... in favor of a subjective hypothetical guess?
I would think that subjective hypothetical arguments would be the least substantial arguments?
But you disagree?
Generally when we look to prove something "might happen" - doesn't the court hold tangible empirical evidence in higher regard than abstract or hypothetical arguments?
That's the second time you've claimed "tangible evidence" proving your case, without actually citing any. So out with it, what tangible evidence are you referring to?
One of the key people from the Census Bureau who made the decisions wrote a fairly in depth piece (I believe it was the WSJ) who went through the decision making, along with a claim that they studied the various surveys that they send out, and found no real difference in the participation rates to suggest that the 2020 census participation would drop.
I would expect the lion's share of the legal arguments to deal with the validity of that claim and the parcing of that data.
It would seem that you believe that the argument is one that can just legally assume that participation rates will drop, and then the only question is whether that harm is offset by the good that will come from the information.
I would think that the drop of the participation rate will need to be proven (not just assumed).
to me, (and i'm old fashioned in this way) the only "reasonable person" is one who arrives here via the legal process and remains a law abiding citizen. the thought that we have any obligation to anyone who doesn't fit that profile is self destructive.
The actual concern here is not with any obligation to those people.
The concern is with the Census accurately counting all of the legal people, and how suggested Census practices and cross-agency sharing of sensitive information may alter that count.
CH, are you talking about the proposed changes combining Race/ethnicity questions?
That's only tangentially related, and not what you'd call "tangible evidence" about this question.
No WP...
The Census Bureau obviously does more surveys than one every ten years. They send surveys out that include questions regarding citizenship and similar surveys that do not include questions regarding citizenship.
The article written by the Census Bureau manager, suggested that they have already studied the supposed issues with participation and have not found any tangible evidence of a drop off when the citizenship questions are asked.
Obviously you would have to stipulate that they would have such data available to use? Why would we (instead) decide to work with hypothetical guessing?
Coldheart, regardless of you want to frame hypothetical legal arguments (your hypotheticals having no analogs in actual court cases btw) the fact is that Census undercounts are a well-known, proven phenomenon. Another fact is that US Courts are VERY concerned about the actual Census count because of the constitutional ramifications.
The actual issues recognized by actual courts range from equal protection under the law (it doesn't mean law enforcement protection or physical protection, but rather laws and rights applied equally) to State's Rights (aka the State's "interest" in accurate counts).
You can't wave it away with airy claims such as "seem that you believe" that the argument is one that can just legally assume ..." It's not what I believe or "seem" to believe - It's what the Courts have determined. These aren't questions that anyone "just assumes" - they are considerations that have been examined by Judges in US Courts.
They send surveys out that include questions regarding citizenship and similar surveys that do not include questions regarding citizenship.
Those aren't at issue. At issue is the population count, and how that is presented when the Census determines the actual count.
You still haven't provided any of the "tangible evidence" that you cited twice and promised. I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know of any after all.
The concern is with the Census accurately counting all of the legal people, and how suggested Census practices and cross-agency sharing of sensitive information may alter that count.
your issue is not with practices or sharing, your issue is with human behavior. good luck getting a court to rule in favor of those opposed to the citizenship question on the census questionnaire.
like CH said, good luck getting a court to move on what might happen.
some might not answer or answer untruthfully. oh well. that's on the respondent, not the census.
if we've gotten to the point as a nation where we're allowing what if scenarios such as this to drive our governance, we have issues bigger than a census question could either cause or solve.
WP...
The only question that should matter is whether or not the adding of the citizenship question will lower the participation.
Any other under counting or anything else is going to be irrelevant to the question at hand.
So in those regards, the census information that tracks participation rates for various surveys that both include and exclude that citizenship question would be very relevant?
Wouldn't you agree?
The only question that should matter is whether or not the adding of the citizenship question will lower the participation.
i'm trying to understand why there's more to it than that.
Rat -
When you cannot win an argument with straight ahead facts, then you muddy the waters with irrelevant facts.
WP is coming at this, not from how the law is written, or how ultimately a court should see it... but rather he is looking at it as how he would otherwise argue the case at hand.
The States have to come up with some sort of legal argument.
Lacking an actual legal argument that make sense, they will come out with something "anti-Trump" and judge shop for someone willing to be part of that "resistance". If they do it in the 9th circuit court, then there is a good chance that they can even get the full court to agree... then hope that the USSC declines to take the case for some reason.
WP believes that the "reasonable person standard" would work because he sees himself as a reasonable person. Therefor, because he sees everything that happens within the executive branch as nefarious, then it must be a reasonable assumption to make. Certainly anyone reasonable would agree. Certainly a court would see this.
Throw away the rest of that silly legal mumbo jumbo. Precedents. Evidence. Facts. That sort of thing. Go with the emotion of knowing everything associated with Trump should be illegal.
The only question that should matter is whether or not the adding of the citizenship question will lower the participation.
You were referring to some supplemental surveys.
Did you forget that I suggested using supplemental surveys and statistical inference to gauge the illegal populations, specifically because it would NOT hinder the census count?? Why are you now acting as if there is no difference? Do you simply not understand why there IS a difference in the two?
You haven't read ANY of the citations of court decisions that I linked (that you asked for) have you? Because if you had, you wouldn't be showing this kind of confusion.
WP believes that the "reasonable person standard" would work because he sees himself as a reasonable person.
Dude, I told you that the court cases would ultimately come down to that. And they WILL, because those kinds of questions usually do. I'm not "advocating" or "seeming to believe" anything about the standard. I told you a simple fact, that courts will need to use that standard, and you of off into your wild fantasy inferences rather than accept, or even dispute, the fact.
What "wp believes" about the standard isn't even part of it, except for your strawman arguments. You simply cannot argue with the reality of the legal arguments, therefore you want to argue with the person and your imagined positions for the person.
WP...
I understand it's your assertion that the Census Bureau can gather the information by "sampling" rather than by adding the question to every survey.
But supplying the court with a different option isn't really a legal argument. The court doesn't exist to determine the best practices of every agency in the Government.
The court is there to determine whether adding the question is either unconstitutional or unlawful.
The court is there to determine whether adding the question is either unconstitutional or unlawful.
if it was legal in 2000 but suddenly illegal in 2018 i'm going to be seriously wondering what's changed in less than 20 years.
or is this going to be like the travel ban bullshit where some 0linsky sycophant from hawaii can muck the whole thing up?
Post a Comment