Law Citizenship Question on 2020 Census CANCELLED

[panamaican]

Let’s set aside the substance of these policy judgments and instead focus on who is allowed to make them. Under the Census Act, Congress authorized Wilbur Ross, as Secretary of Commerce, to administer the census, and nowhere have they disallowed use of a citizenship question. He was vested with a wide range of discretion about how to accomplish that goal. By contrast, Congress has, since 1976, prohibited mandatory questions about religion on the census form. So if Congress has authority to vest and divest the Commerce Secretary of discretion in administering the census, why should the Court step in?

I think the only legitimate argument is if it actually negatively impacts response rate. Hence my curiosity about the data around depressed results.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Race, age, gender, etc. are all irrelevant.

They already ask these questions though.

 

[panamaican]

If the census asks any question at all beyond simple head count, then their is no justifiable reason not to ask about citizenship status.

We use the census to compile all kinds of data about our population. This is just another data point. The resistance to this notion is disproportionate to the actual importance of the data that will be compiled.

Unless said question leads to people not participating which would negatively impact accuracy.

Absent that concern, there's nothing wrong with the question. But that appears to be the stated concern.

We use the Census for all sorts of things but that's only so long as they don't interfere with the actual purpose of the Census. Hence this being the point of litigation - will this specific question actually interfere with the purpose of the Census to provide an accurate number of Persons?

It's pointless to speculate without actually seeing what is being used to support the claim.

 

[Seano]

Can't really see an objection to this that makes a lot of sense.

 

[panamaican]

They already ask these questions though.

Doesn't make them any more relevant. The issue is whether or not a question will actually interfere with the purpose of the Census to provide an accurate number of Persons.

Without anything more specific, no one's even looking at the actual question, they're just viewing the legal question through their opinion on illegal immigrants. I can't be bothered with that pointlessness, I'm legitimately interested in if the question will impact response rates.

 

[JamesRussler]

Not for the Census. The Census, per the Constitution, doesn't care at all about anything except the total number of people.
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Article_1_Section_2.pdf

Race, age, gender, etc. are all irrelevant. Head count is what matters.

Also, legal residents (green card holders) are not citizens.

There’s a risk in raising the “Persons” argument in front of a SCOTUS that leans 5-4. For one, the meaning of that word is not as settled as some believe. It is arguable that it has always applied only to citizens, or persons later deemed citizens (e.g., in the case of “3/5 persons”). This also comports with common sense because allocating representatives based on numbers of non-citizens is effectively enfranchising them. The Court may hold that “‘Persons’ means ‘Citizens of the USA’,” leaving plaintiffs in a worse position than if they had simply kept their mouths shut.

 

[Seano]

Doesn't make them any more relevant. The issue is whether or not a question will actually interfere with the purpose of the Census to provide an accurate number of Persons.

Without anything more specific, no one's even looking at the actual question, they're just viewing the legal question through their opinion on illegal immigrants. I can't be bothered with that pointlessness, I'm legitimately interested in if the question will impact response rates.

If they can come to my house and ask me who is there, how many kids I have etc etc etc then I can't really see a non partisan reason for not asking about citizenship.

 

[JamesRussler]

I think the only legitimate argument is if it actually negatively impacts response rate. Hence my curiosity about the data around depressed results.

Is there perhaps an argument that intermingling non-citizens with citizens leads to an innaccurate count, since the count is used to apportion seats in the House (i.e. elected representatives of citizens)?

 

[JamesRussler]

They already ask these questions though.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

just out of curiosity, anybody here ever been questioned by the Census? How about Pew?

I haven't for those two, but i did once a few years back get a Nielsan's Rating survey in the mail w/ a free $5 bill attached to it

 

[Seano]

just out of curiosity, anybody here ever been questioned by the Census? How about Pew?

I haven't for those two, but i did once a few years back get a Nielsan's Rating survey in the mail w/ a free $5 bill attached to it

Yes. I'm not sure what they do now but they used to literally drive around and go door to door up here to conduct the census.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Unless said question leads to people not participating which would negatively impact accuracy.

Absent that concern, there's nothing wrong with the question. But that appears to be the stated concern.

We use the Census for all sorts of things but that's only so long as they don't interfere with the actual purpose of the Census. Hence this being the point of litigation - will this specific question actually interfere with the purpose of the Census to provide an accurate number of Persons?

It's pointless to speculate without actually seeing what is being used to support the claim.

That concern is invalid. The census also asks questions about yearly income and the like. That's a question that's just as likely to cause people to not participate accurately.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

just out of curiosity, anybody here ever been questioned by the Census? How about Pew?

I haven't for those two, but i did once a few years back get a Nielsan's Rating survey in the mail w/ a free $5 bill attached to it

Yes (Census). No (Pew).

Sounds like an important question to me. We should have an accurate accounting of number of illegal immigrants in the country, though reality is that including it in a census probably won’t get us any closer to a n accurate understanding (though I’m no demographer). I doubt many illegals would answer that question honestly (or at all).

 

[HunterSdVa29]

it would take some serious balls for an illegal immigrant to answer that question honestly

even if the census purported some 'we won't tell ICE' guarantee, would you believe them? W/ this administration?

 

[JamesRussler]

just out of curiosity, anybody here ever been questioned by the Census? How about Pew?

I haven't for those two, but i did once a few years back get a Nielsan's Rating survey in the mail w/ a free $5 bill attached to it

Returned the census form twice, don’t know if I talked to Pew. I know I’ve answered a few polls over the years.

 

[Gunny]

Is there perhaps an argument that intermingling non-citizens with citizens leads to an innaccurate count, since the count is used to apportion seats in the House (i.e. elected representatives of citizens)?

I would imagine the argument doesn’t seem legitimate to people who want that outcome.

 

[glenwo2]

Yes. The Conservative Supreme Court is poised to allow a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/23/politics/supreme-court-census-question-oral-arguments/index.html

The Constitution requires a census every 10 years to determine the number of PEOPLE living in each state, not the number of CITIZENS! We allocate House seats and electoral votes based on the number of PEOPLE residing in the states, not the number of CITIZENS!

Because of this citizenship question, more undocumented citizens will refuse to answer the census, with mucho-undocumented states (such as CA and NY) receiving fewer seats in the House, and fewer electoral votes. This citizenship question is clearly designed to disenfranchise undocumented citizens and deprive them of the representation in Congress!

That’s why a coalition of states sued POTUS Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to stop them from putting the citizenship question. They have no right to ask! It’s none of your business who is a citizen! Fuck off Nazi scum!

Sadly, there are 5 Conservative judges on the Supreme Court, and they appear unwilling to rein in the Trump administration’s egregious overreach. This is probably one of the worst things ever to happen in our time. It’s like the Trail of Tears all over again.

The SCOTUS opinion will come out around June.

Thoughts? Discuss.

TRAIL OF TEARS is right :

 

[HockeyBjj]

I'm shocked that representation amounts are determined simply by something like a poll question

Seems super easy to lie about and rig really

Is it the census that determines # of seats?

 

[glenwo2]

Let’s set aside the substance of these policy judgments and instead focus on who is allowed to make them. Under the Census Act, Congress authorized Wilbur Ross, as Secretary of Commerce, to administer the census, and nowhere have they disallowed use of a citizenship question. He was vested with a wide range of discretion about how to accomplish that goal. By contrast, Congress has, since 1976, prohibited mandatory questions about religion on the census form. So if Congress has authority to vest and divest the Commerce Secretary of discretion in administering the census, why should the Court step in?

Because our POTUS is Trump. What else?

 

[Gunny]

I'm shocked that representation amounts are determined simply by something like a poll question

Seems super easy to lie about and rig really

Is it the census that determines # of seats?

The number of seats is fixed but the census determines how they are distributed. To the issue at hand, a theoretical geographic area that has only one voting citizen could be awarded its own congressional district. Reality isn’t that extreme but immigrant heavy parts of California and other states are disturbingly tilted in that direction.

Of course, if you’re the type of person who wants demographics to decide elections, then you’re probably happy to see this be the case and against things like pesky census questions on citizenship paving the way for a legal correction.