Law Citizenship Question on 2020 Census CANCELLED

[woodguyatl]

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.

Although it would be more expensive, I think it would make sense to have a census to only county “persons” per the Constitution and a “national questionnaire” to collect all the other data. I’m not sure why, other than cost, the two must be combined.

 

[woodguyatl]

Ok. But neither should count when we are calculating congressional or electoral representation.
Sorry, citizens only when we are deciding how to govern our society.

The Constitution requires apportionment of Representative based on residents, not citizens. It is quite clear in that regard. An Amendment could change that of course.

 

[Falsedawn]

The Constitution requires apportionment of Representative based on residents, not citizens. It is quite clear in that regard. An Amendment could change that of course.

Nah man, fuck permanent residents. Who gives a shit if they pay taxes?

 

[TrumpSupporter]

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.

if you are a legal citizen then there is nothing to discuss

 

[TrumpSupporter]

The Constitution requires apportionment of Representative based on residents, not citizens. It is quite clear in that regard. An Amendment could change that of course.

i say welcome them like Alpha on the walking dead

 

[lilelvis]

The Constitution requires apportionment of Representative based on residents, not citizens. It is quite clear in that regard. An Amendment could change that of course.

Where’d you hear that?


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

 

[JamesRussler]

Where’d you hear that?


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

The 14th Amendment changes some of that, but still your point stands.

 

[waiguoren]

@JamesRussler

This problem would have been a lot easier to remedy if the 16th Amendment didn't exist. The 16th Amendment eliminated the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, which cleared the way for the federal income tax. Without the federal income tax at its disposal, the federal government would be forced to look elsewhere for revenue.

Article I, Section 2 (3):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...​

Here "direct Taxes" means capitations or property taxes on owners. Imagine that the federal government received significant revenue from a capitation apportioned among the states. You can bet your house that California and New York would suddenly become very interested in reducing their illegal immigrant populations so as to reduce the tax revenue they would have to turn over to the federal government.

 

[woodguyatl]

Nah man, fuck permanent residents. Who gives a shit if they pay taxes?

Green card holders too.

 

[woodguyatl]

Where’d you hear that?


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

be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons. It says Persons not Citizens. Amendments have been added to fix the Indian and 3/5 crap. None has been added to limit it just Citizens instead of free Persons. Where in the paragraph does it say anything about Citizens? Or are you arguing that illegal immigrants aren't "persons?"

 

[JamesRussler]

@JamesRussler

This problem would have been a lot easier to remedy if the 16th Amendment didn't exist. The 16th Amendment eliminated the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, which cleared the way for the federal income tax. Without the federal income tax at its disposal, the federal government would be forced to look elsewhere for revenue.

Article I, Section 2 (3):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...​

Here "direct Taxes" means capitations or property taxes on owners. Imagine that the federal government received significant revenue from a capitation apportioned among the states. You can bet your house that California and New York would suddenly become very interested in reducing their illegal immigrant populations so as to reduce the tax revenue they would have to turn over to the federal government.

Somehow I don’t think advocates for undocumented citizens are concerned about taxes. Their position appears to be purely identity-driven.

 

[waiguoren]

Somehow I don’t think advocates for undocumented citizens are concerned about taxes. Their position appears to be purely identity-driven.

Financial pressure has a funny way of making people (and governments) abandon virtue signaling.

 

[JamesRussler]

be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons. It says Persons not Citizens. Amendments have been added to fix the Indian and 3/5 crap. None has been added to limit it just Citizens instead of free Persons. Where in the paragraph does it say anything about Citizens? Or are you arguing that illegal immigrants aren't "persons?"

Suppose there’s a district that is 80% undocumented citizens, but because they are counted as “persons,” that district meets the threshold to be apportioned a seat in the House of Representatives. Is that acceptable to you?

 

[waiguoren]

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.

Why? Is there some sort of legislative prohibition against the Commerce Secretary adding questions that might reduce response rate?

 

[JamesRussler]

Financial pressure has a funny way of making people (and governments) abandon virtue signaling.

One might expect that to be the case (assuming people/entities act rationally in their long-term interest), but that hypothesis has been tested in recent years. What we’ve discovered is this: Mexicans show out for Mexicans, Blacks show out for Blacks, and melanin-deficient people show out for fiscal responsibility. States like CA and NY are increasingly managed by non-melanin-deficient people. Undocumented citizens are of course generally non-melanin-deficient. Consequently, the prospect of undocumented citizens outnumbering non-undocumented citizens does not scare people in power. They are merely helping their abuelos secure the existence of their people and a future for non-melanin-deficient children. Not even threat of financial collapse will persuade them to abandon their people.

 

[JamesRussler]

Why? Is there some sort of legislative prohibition against the Commerce Secretary adding questions that might reduce response rate?

No. The opposing argument would be that it runs afoul of the Constitution’s requirement of an “actual Enumeration.” That begs the question: actual enumeration of whom?

 

[waiguoren]

What we’ve discovered is this: Mexicans show out for Mexicans, Blacks show out for Blacks, and melanin-deficient people show out for fiscal responsibility.

"Show out"? Do you mean "turn out"?

If so, I don't see how the "melanin-deficient" thing aligns with white voters' repeated majority support for politicians who vote for continued profligate spending.

 

[waiguoren]

No. The opposing argument would be that it runs afoul of the Constitution’s requirement of an “actual Enumeration.” That begs the question: actual enumeration of whom?

Improper use of "beg the question" aside, I agree with you. The courts should not be in the business of trying to decide which questions endanger an "actual Enumeration". That seems pretty clearly to be a legislative function.

 

[JamesRussler]

"Show out"? Do you mean "turn out"?

If so, I don't see how the "melanin-deficient" thing aligns with white voters' repeated majority support for politicians who vote for continued profligate spending.

“Show out” = “support” (roughly translated)

Perhaps I should have used a different term than “fiscal responsibility.” I meant to say “their economic interest.” The melanin-deficient constituency is divided across a range of economic interests and ideologies. Indeed, as you noted, many of them support economically nihilistic positions.

 

[JamesRussler]

Improper use of "beg the question" aside, I agree with you. The courts should not be in the business of trying to decide which questions endanger an "actual Enumeration". That seems pretty clearly to be a legislative function.

That’s a pretty classic case of “beg the question” actually. We have this unresolved term (“persons”), but instead of reckoning with that issue properly, the Left assumes their position correct and moves on to a dependent argument. In short, you cannot resolve what an “actual enumeration” is before you answer the question of which “persons” are enumerated.

Setting that aside, the words “actual enumeration” come from the Constitution itself. The Court always has jurisdiction to consider Constitutional questions. But if corresponding legislation or executive action doesn’t conflict with the Constitution, the Court should stay out of it.