Census Citizenship Question

[MidwestIndy]

I suspect the Trump Tweet brigade to be out about this shortly.

[Safiel]

@Apocalypto

@Safiel

The reasons given in opposition to the question are irrelevant. The fact that some people might break the law and refuse to answer the census is not a valid reason for not including the question, particularly as virtually 100% of those people are ALREADY breaking the law by being in the United States at all.

I disagree, there are millions of Green Card Permanent Residents (including my mother) who would hesitate to answer the question because of fear of repercussions.

Then they should be educated that there are no possible repercussions for those here legally. There is a broader legal immigrant community that could help with that education.

[calirepub]

What percentage of the people who fit that demographic are you comfortable undercounting?

[Apocalypto]

@Safiel

Then they should be educated that there are no possible repercussions for those here legally. There is a broader legal immigrant community that could help with that education

Sorry, that’s not gonna cut it.

[Safiel]

@Apocalypto

@Safiel

Then they should be educated that there are no possible repercussions for those here legally. There is a broader legal immigrant community that could help with that education

Sorry, that’s not gonna cut it.

Regardless, it is not a sufficient reason not to include the question.

[dderatz]

@Safiel

It was rejected here, simply because the rule making was not done in the proper manner. But this decision leaves the door wide open for the future.

Safiel, I don’t agree that was the decision. There were two distinct 5-4 decisions. First, Roberts aligned with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that the question did not violate Due Process, and that the reason given by Commerce was adequate. Second, Robert aligned with Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer that the reason, albeit “adequate” for the inclusion was not consistent with the actions taken by Commerce, and therefore was pretextual. So the question is not necessarily ok for future censuses. I don’t see this as an APA issue, so much as a discriminatory intent (ie. an invalid reason) issue. As the dissents point out, the APA does not expressly provide for review of discriminatory intent, but intent is relevant (citing the Obama “open internet” regulation). Therefore, if there is no proffer of a reason that overcomes the inference that the lower courts drew of malign intent, then the question will not be on the census.

[madasheck]

Agreed. And I also disagree that it can be added. I don’t believe it can given the language of the decision.

[Sknyluv]

@Safiel

The fact that some people might break the law and refuse to answer the census is not a valid reason for not including the question, particularly as virtually 100% of those people are ALREADY breaking the law by being in the United States at all.

The whole point was to scare people from answering the question and participating in the census. The Trump administration didn’t do a good enough job convincing the courts otherwise.

[madasheck]

@Sknyluv

@Safiel

The fact that some people might break the law and refuse to answer the census is not a valid reason for not including the question, particularly as virtually 100% of those people are ALREADY breaking the law by being in the United States at all.

The whole point was to scare people from answering the question and participating in the census. The Trump administration didn’t do a good enough job convincing the courts otherwise.

Exactly. And I think this “virtually 100% of the people are ALREADY breaking the law” is an overstatement. There may be other reasons. In any event, the real reason this question was to be added was to deny representation. That’s what the court struck down. And rightly so.

[Safiel]

@madasheck

Exactly. And I think this “virtually 100% of the people are ALREADY breaking the law” is an overstatement. There may be other reasons. In any event, the real reason this question was to be added was to deny representation. That’s what the court struck down. And rightly so.

Of course, the whole thing with allowing unlimited immigration and acting to prevent enforcement is to bolster numbers, essentially using illegals to steal representation from citizens.

Perhaps the motivation of Trump may not be virtuous, but the other sides actions also lack virtue.

BOTH sides try to game the system in their own different ways.

[biggestal99]

@Safiel

Then they should be educated that there are no possible repercussions for those here legally. There is a broader legal immigrant community that could help with that education

People are generally ignorant, the laws need to protect the ignorant from themselves.

Allan

[Sknyluv]

@Safiel

@madasheck

Exactly. And I think this “virtually 100% of the people are ALREADY breaking the law” is an overstatement. There may be other reasons. In any event, the real reason this question was to be added was to deny representation. That’s what the court struck down. And rightly so.

Of course, the whole thing with allowing unlimited immigration and acting to prevent enforcement is to bolster numbers, essentially using illegals to steal representation from citizens.

Perhaps the motivation of Trump may not be virtuous, but the other sides actions also lack virtue.

BOTH sides try to game the system in their own different ways.

No. The “whole thing” is about getting an accurate count. It’s not democrats fault that hurts Republican chances at manipulating voting districts.

[biggestal99]

@Safiel

Perhaps the motivation of Trump may not be virtuous

“Perhaps”

Lol

This is the least virtuous admin in my lifetime.
Allan

[komobu]

Wrong…They dont want an “Accurate count”. They want a count that inflates their numbers so they got more congressional representation over other states. Only citizen numbers should count for the census. No visitors / illegals should be counted when apportioning congressional seats.

[Sknyluv]

@komobu

Wrong…They dont want an “Accurate count”. They want a count that inflates their numbers so they got more congressional representation over other states. Only citizen numbers should count for the census. No visitors / illegals should be counted when apportioning congressional seats.

If you want your community to be inadequately prepared to service the correct number of people. That’s on you.

I would prefer we get accurate counts everywhere, so that states, counties, cities, and communities can accurately prepare and serve their citizens.

If an accurate count hurts Republicans, tough ■■■■■

[DOLOOP]

Well.

I did NOT see that coming.

I thought for sure the court would side with whatever excuse the administration gave that offered even a scintilla of legal rationale.

[Guilds]

@Sknyluv

No. The “whole thing” is about getting an accurate count. It’s not democrats fault that hurts Republican chances at manipulating voting districts.

From Article 1, section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Does it say citizens?

Then there is this, that we do not follow any longer…which I believe we should look at…
" The Number of Representatives shall not
exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one."

[komobu]

It is not about “Republicans” or preparation. If it is about preperation, let California have their own local census. It is about what is Right and what is Wrong.

The amount of American Citizens in the country is divided by 435. A State’s population is then divided by that number to determine how many representatives each state will have. As of 2016, California was showing 2.2 Million illegals.

So say it here now clearly for all to see. Should those 2.2 million individuals be counted as California residents for California to get additional congressional seats over other states?

Dont be afraid. Tell us clearly how you think. Should other states loose their representative seats so California can gain more?

[komobu]

I’m asking you…Does it say visitors?

[DOLOOP]

@komobu

Wrong…They dont want an “Accurate count”. They want a count that inflates their numbers so they got more congressional representation over other states. Only citizen numbers should count for the census. No visitors / illegals should be counted when apportioning congressional seats.

Weird. I’m not seeing the word citizen in the constitution.