Census-WHY BOTHER

[holmes435]

Does any one remember all the OUTRAGE when Obama removed the citizenship question from the Census?

He didn't remove it because it wasn't on the Census and hasn't been since 1950.

It was on a survey that went out to a fraction of Americans. And the citizenship question was asked in those surveys in 2010.

[foreverlax]

Does any one remember all the OUTRAGE when Obama removed the citizenship question from the Census?

He didn't remove it because it wasn't on the Census and hasn't been since 1950.

It was on a survey that went out to a fraction of Americans. And the citizenship question was asked in those surveys in 2010.

It's the land of alternative facts....facts really don't matter one lick. Sad.

[kramerica.inc]

Just a reminder that the ACS is not mandatory, no matter what they tell you.
The survey minions go away after a while.
But they will stalk you. Had one wait outside my home in my driveway for a few weeks.

[MDlaxfan76]

Just a reminder that the ACS is not mandatory, no matter what they tell you.
The survey minions go away after a while.
But they will stalk you. Had one wait outside my home in my driveway for a few weeks.

Why don't you want to answer their questions?

[kramerica.inc]

Too personal.

[HooDat]

You don't need a law degree to answer this. But since I did spend the three years in law school, let me lay it out:

1. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution says "Representatives...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."

2. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment cleaned up the bit about the 3/5ths. Now the rule is that representation is determined based on the “whole number of persons in each state.” It does not say anything about the number of voters, number of adults, number of legal immigrants, number of illegal immigrants. It says "whole number of persons." Put that in your strict constructionist pipe and smoke it!!

3. SCOTUS has previously ruled (9-0 fyi) that you have to do apportionment based upon an actual enumeration of the population. You can't base it on other kinds of statistical techniques (even if valid). Because the freaking Constitution says exactly what is says!!

4. If the Commerce Department is going to do an actual count, then the enumeration clause of the Constitution itself requires the census to be administered in a way that “bear[s] … a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.” Wisconsin v. City of New York (1996; 9-0). Also says that the judgments of the Commerce Secy in administering the Census are subject to judicial review. Very good rule. Because if that were not the rule, there would be nothing to stop a rat bastard hack Commerce Secy from fashioning a questionnaire designed to discourage participation by certain segments of the population.

5. Writing for the Court, Justice Roberts said (and I paraphrase) "get the fork out of my court room you lying rat bastard Wilbur Ross. And please stand by for your indictment on perjury charges for lying in federal court."

6. The reason why Trump CAVED on this issue (in addition to a SCOTUS decision) is that going back to the district court for litigation would mean discovery. And discovery would be BRUTAL. It would just show more and more and more and more rat bastard-ness on the part of the Trumpsters. Thankfully for us all, the lawyers at the DOJ (not Barr but the real worker bee Deep Staters) fragged Barr and Trump badly enough that even Trump/Barr finally had to give up. Which, of course, did not stop them from claiming complete victory! At some point, those damned Deep State lawyers are just not willing to sacrifice their careers, self-respect and law licenses any more in service to a complete clusterfork of bad faith, shameless lies, incompetence and dumb-forkery.

7. Interestingly, SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the question of whether counting illegals in the census (and using their heads for congressional apportionment) is required and legal. So that question is technically open. Alabama is currently suing over that very question. Seems like that case is going to be a loser, but you never know.

8. TL/DR version -- you need a constitutional amendment to apportion on a basis other than actual count of actual people in the country. You may not think it is right or fair to count the illegals, but that is what it says. The 3/5ths wasn't right or fair either -- but we needed an amendment to get rid of that.

great summary - thank you. I had not focused on the issue much and the use of the word Persons rather than citizen in the Constitution had never caught my attention. So, I assumed citizen, because that is what I would have been counting. This is why I like these boards - between the screamers you pick up some actual nuggets that are useful.

Funny how the demands of slave owners most likely are today thwarting the efforts of folks to try to limit the representative impact of immigrants that both side clearly assume are (a) non-"white" and (b) will vote Dem. Both are probably true - but not necessarily so.

[MDlaxfan76]

Too personal.

Fair...I don't recall what one might get asked on the survey that most of us would agree is 'too personal', but it's probably an each to his own. I won't ask you which question(s) bother you in particular.

For some it might be gender identity or sexual preference, or for some religious attendance or affiliation, or other such information previously used for discriminatory targeting purposes. Indeed, certainly to some, being asked whether they are a citizen or not, would be 'too personal', meaning serious potential implications for being targeted.

Better to just avoid the questioner.

[HooDat]

Too personal.

Fair...I don't recall what one might get asked on the survey that most of us would agree is 'too personal', but it's probably an each to his own. I won't ask you which question(s) bother you in particular.

For some it might be gender identity or sexual preference, or for some religious attendance or affiliation, or other such information previously used for discriminatory targeting purposes. Indeed, certainly to some, being asked whether they are a citizen or not, would be 'too personal', meaning serious potential implications for being targeted.

Better to just avoid the questioner.

there is some truth to this, that extends beyond the "citizen question".

The Constitution says they need to count people. It does not say they need to extract all that additional information.

What do folks on both sides of the "questions that put you off" issue have to say about the notion that all the census should ask is: are you "here" and have you been counted yet?

[MDlaxfan76]

You don't need a law degree to answer this. But since I did spend the three years in law school, let me lay it out:

1. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution says "Representatives...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."

2. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment cleaned up the bit about the 3/5ths. Now the rule is that representation is determined based on the “whole number of persons in each state.” It does not say anything about the number of voters, number of adults, number of legal immigrants, number of illegal immigrants. It says "whole number of persons." Put that in your strict constructionist pipe and smoke it!!

3. SCOTUS has previously ruled (9-0 fyi) that you have to do apportionment based upon an actual enumeration of the population. You can't base it on other kinds of statistical techniques (even if valid). Because the freaking Constitution says exactly what is says!!

4. If the Commerce Department is going to do an actual count, then the enumeration clause of the Constitution itself requires the census to be administered in a way that “bear[s] … a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.” Wisconsin v. City of New York (1996; 9-0). Also says that the judgments of the Commerce Secy in administering the Census are subject to judicial review. Very good rule. Because if that were not the rule, there would be nothing to stop a rat bastard hack Commerce Secy from fashioning a questionnaire designed to discourage participation by certain segments of the population.

5. Writing for the Court, Justice Roberts said (and I paraphrase) "get the fork out of my court room you lying rat bastard Wilbur Ross. And please stand by for your indictment on perjury charges for lying in federal court."

6. The reason why Trump CAVED on this issue (in addition to a SCOTUS decision) is that going back to the district court for litigation would mean discovery. And discovery would be BRUTAL. It would just show more and more and more and more rat bastard-ness on the part of the Trumpsters. Thankfully for us all, the lawyers at the DOJ (not Barr but the real worker bee Deep Staters) fragged Barr and Trump badly enough that even Trump/Barr finally had to give up. Which, of course, did not stop them from claiming complete victory! At some point, those damned Deep State lawyers are just not willing to sacrifice their careers, self-respect and law licenses any more in service to a complete clusterfork of bad faith, shameless lies, incompetence and dumb-forkery.

7. Interestingly, SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the question of whether counting illegals in the census (and using their heads for congressional apportionment) is required and legal. So that question is technically open. Alabama is currently suing over that very question. Seems like that case is going to be a loser, but you never know.

8. TL/DR version -- you need a constitutional amendment to apportion on a basis other than actual count of actual people in the country. You may not think it is right or fair to count the illegals, but that is what it says. The 3/5ths wasn't right or fair either -- but we needed an amendment to get rid of that.

great summary - thank you. I had not focused on the issue much and the use of the word Persons rather than citizen in the Constitution had never caught my attention. So, I assumed citizen, because that is what I would have been counting. This is why I like these boards - between the screamers you pick up some actual nuggets that are useful.

Funny how the demands of slave owners most likely are today thwarting the efforts of folks to try to limit the representative impact of immigrants that both side clearly assume are (a) non-"white" and (b) will vote Dem. Both are probably true - but not necessarily so.

Yup, as the song goes: "Isn't it ironic?"

Yes, many of us have been pounding on the distinction between Persons and Citizens. Both words are used in the Constitution and its clear they are meant to be distinct from one another.

And it's indeed ironic that the bigots on the right of today are being frustrated by the compromise of the Founders to get the slave states and bigots of their era to sign on to the Constitution.

A lot of imperfection in the Constitution, but it's a 'living document' that continues to be amended and interpreted towards a 'more perfect' union. In this instance, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to apportion representation based on citizens rather than total population.

[MDlaxfan76]

Too personal.

Fair...I don't recall what one might get asked on the survey that most of us would agree is 'too personal', but it's probably an each to his own. I won't ask you which question(s) bother you in particular.

For some it might be gender identity or sexual preference, or for some religious attendance or affiliation, or other such information previously used for discriminatory targeting purposes. Indeed, certainly to some, being asked whether they are a citizen or not, would be 'too personal', meaning serious potential implications for being targeted.

Better to just avoid the questioner.

there is some truth to this, that extends beyond the "citizen question".

The Constitution says they need to count people. It does not say they need to extract all that additional information.

What do folks on both sides of the "questions that put you off" issue have to say about the notion that all the census should ask is: are you "here" and have you been counted yet?

Most of the touchy stuff gets asked in the survey, the ACS, which is what kramerica was saying he avoids.

That said, you're right, the priority of Census every 10 years is to get an accurate count, or as close to it as possible, period.

So they try to make the full Census un-intimidating.

[ggait]

Hoodat -- it is not illogical or unreasonable to think that congressional representation (which ties directly into voting) would be based on citizens -- i.e. the population that has voting rights. So why count non-voter illegals?

Fact is, though, that we really didn't have any federal immigration laws until the Yellow Peril in the 1880s. So in 1789 and 1865 we had truly open borders. If you were physically present in the U.S., you pretty much had legal status. So the category of "illegal immigrants" just had not come into existence yet. So who knows what the 1789/1865 framers really had in mind when they set the standard as per capita people.

You can make arguments for/against that standard, as is currently being done in the pending Alabama case. I think the argument for counting illegals is stronger. In 1865 you would totally know that lots of dirty non-citizen Irish had been included in the 1860 census count, and that NYS's congressional representation and electoral votes therefore had been inflated by all those yucky people. So a Justice who prides himself on being a Scalian originalist or conservative strict constructionist has to say that the illegals must be counted/included, right? We'll see whether that happens or not.

Most likely, the framers didn't think anything one way or the other on this. Since the status of an "illegal" immigrant had not been invented yet in 1865.

Interestingly, the effect of including the illegals really has not had much of a partisan impact -- yet. Seats have been going down in both red and blue states and have been going to both red and blue states. Analyses say that the illegals inclusion caused the 2010 census gave 2 more seats to CA, 1 more to FL and TX. So pretty much a wash. Now if/when TX ever becomes a true purple or blue state....

But if TX actually flips, the GOP is pretty much screwed no matter how you slice it. At which point you can expect the GOP to start advocating for changes to that unfair and unAmerican Electoral College!

[OCanada]

The goal of the question is to reduce the influence of one segment t of the population and increase the influence of another. Demographics are driving the insertion of the question.

Regardless there are laws pursuant to the census the administration did not follow and lied about in the process.

My guess is GOP members told Trump if he ignored SCOTUS he was done. On the other hand he frequently if not always blinks

[a fan]

What do folks on both sides of the "questions that put you off" issue have to say about the notion that all the census should ask is: are you "here" and have you been counted yet?

Because it's not the 1700's anymore. We need data to manage and govern our nation. These answers are enormous when it comes to managing transportation, agriculture, education, health, and on and on and on.

The policy wonks---who could give a *hit about D's and R's---- have answers to your question at the ready.... Spelled out for every section of the census. Pretty neat, really.


https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/wh ... -question/

[runrussellrun]

Most of the touchy stuff gets asked in the survey, the ACS, which is what kramerica was saying he avoids.

That said, you're right, the priority of Census every 10 years is to get an accurate count, or as close to it as possible, period.

So they try to make the full Census un-intimidating.

some of the same questioned asked a few days ago.

a. What is the purpose of counting people?

2. What were the factors behind the sudden stoppage of using census data for that purpose ?

C. Does this graph bother you, at all?

https://thirty-thousand.org/graphics/chart_US1.png

[HooDat]

But if TX actually flips, the GOP is pretty much screwed no matter how you slice it. At which point you can expect the GOP to start advocating for changes to that unfair and unAmerican Electoral College!

ridiculous, but true! They will also be scrambling to learn espanol and I would venture to say that Texas is starting to look at least a little magenta... [for the record, I had to look up "magenta"]

On the other hand he frequently if not always blinks

it has become a pattern for Trump hasn't it??

The policy wonks---who could give a *hit about D's and R's---- have answers to your question at the ready.... Spelled out for every section of the census. Pretty neat, really.

trust, or lack thereof, in policy wonks is where you and I seem to see the least eye-to-eye..... I know most don't care about the r's and d's, but they also seem to be blind to unintended consequences.

[a fan]

trust, or lack thereof, in policy wonks is where you and I seem to see the least eye-to-eye..... I know most don't care about the r's and d's, but they also seem to be blind to unintended consequences.

Not at all. I live with one. They need data to work, and they have people who do nothing but evaluate results..and either tweak or kill programs that aren't working. And they know full well about unintended consequences. But the problem is: the other option is to fly blind with no data and no evaluation. I prefer science based policies. Anything else is throwing darts at a board....and anything else will ALSO have unintended consequences.

The problem you have is with the politicians they serve....who over/undersell results, and who have no interest in your unintended consequences.

[ABV 8.3%]

Ate shrooms at his birth place once and then had a grand time across the river at some bucolic school that has gone way down hill.

I don't recall the school part.
which school?

Joseph Smith was born near Royalton, VT., which, I am sure you already knew. About a half hour car ride to the Norwich Inn. Fun Frats nearby.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ate shrooms at his birth place once and then had a grand time across the river at some bucolic school that has gone way down hill.

I don't recall the school part.
which school?

Joseph Smith was born near Royalton, VT., which, I am sure you already knew. About a half hour car ride to the Norwich Inn. Fun Frats nearby.

All news to me, but interesting. Go Big Green!

[kramerica.inc]

What do folks on both sides of the "questions that put you off" issue have to say about the notion that all the census should ask is: are you "here" and have you been counted yet?

Because it's not the 1700's anymore. We need data to manage and govern our nation. These answers are enormous when it comes to managing transportation, agriculture, education, health, and on and on and on.

The policy wonks---who could give a *hit about D's and R's---- have answers to your question at the ready.... Spelled out for every section of the census. Pretty neat, really.


https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/wh ... -question/

Afan,
The info for most of these questions can be found elsewhere including on Income tax forms, school registration forms, doctors insurance forms and immigraiton paperwork.
No need for them to ask in the ACS.
Unless the government is doing a lousy job administrating and all that other paperwork is bs/useless...

[a fan]

I respectfully disagree. Read the questions. Tell me where we're supposed to find out things like "how many minutes did it take you to get home from work last week?"