Only in the U.S. Is It Controversial for the Census to Ask About Citizenship

Hdjdjh wrote:

They don’t. Learn how to read

They don't "what"? Learn how to express your thoughts through the written word.

Hans von Spakovsky had parents who probably where illegal immigrants at one point. Now he writes articles to make life more difficult for them.

Von Spakovsky was born in Huntsville, Alabama, where his parents had eventually settled after immigrating to the United States in 1951. His German mother met his Russian father Anatol von Spakovsky, who had settled in Yugoslavia after WWI and then fled to Germany after WWII, in a German refugee camp for displaced persons.[5] Von Spakovsky received a B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981 and a J.D. from the Vanderbilt University Law School in 1984. Von Spakovsky is a member of the Georgia and Tennessee bars. Before entering politics, he worked as a government affairs consultant, in a corporate legal department, and in private practice.

Von Spakovsky served as Republican Party chairman in Fulton County, Georgia, and as a Republican appointee to the Fulton County Registration and Election Board, where he championed strict voter-identification laws.[12][13] Von Spakovsky became a member of Voting Integrity Project, which investigated alleged voter fraud across the United States,[14] as well as a member of the politically conservative Federalist Society. He worked as a lawyer for George W. Bush's team during the 2000 Florida Presidential election recount.[12] After Bush's election victory, von Spakovsky was appointed to the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Spakovsky

I don't know to what extent they do or don't vote -- and neither do you. States, such as California, do not require voters to provide identification:

Let's use California as a case in point. In the 1990s, there was an "immigration battle". Believe it or not, there was a time when the Californians fiercely opposed immigration:

Illegal immigration has completely changed the political landscape of California. Do you deny that?

From the article:

If it seems laughable to think that less than a generation ago California was a red state, for all intents, then laugh away.

I do not claim to understand the motives of those who choose to enter this country illegally rather than through the proper channels. I do know that they influence policy, particularly immigration policy, in the areas where they reside. As they gain a stronger foothold, they eventually become "sanctuary cities". If you don't recognize this, then I'm sure you're just exhibiting willful ignorance, correct? :)

If you think the Russians had a marked effect on the results of our presidential election, I think you will have a much more difficult case to prove than the one I presented above.

One of the reasons we have the electoral college is to prevent the lopsided needs of one state outweighing the needs of less populous states. It is neither a Republican nor Democrat institution -- that was something put in place by our Founding Fathers. Democrats want to get rid of it because they think they should have won the last election. They didn't care about it when Obama won.

It can't be "shown" that it won't improve accuracy because we have no yardstick to measure against! Either we decide we want to do add the question, or we don't.

And, YES, we do have a right to know the citizenship of the people living in our country and where they reside. That's why we have immigration law in the first place.

Count Me In wrote:

A better question would be to ask why the Democrats rely so heavily on people who are not citizens of this country. Aren't they the same party that is so concerned about "Russian Interference"? Do they not share similar concerns about citizens of other countries living among us and participating directly in our political process?

nah it's a stupid right wing question. The constitution doesn't mention counting citizens - only free people. (another discussion). so why do you Republicans only claim to love the constitution when it's politically convenient .

also the census bureau already gathers citizenship data via the ACS. But what use are facts when you can instead use fear.

dfa wrote:

I'm honestly getting sick of how perverse this country's political system has become.

This goes to both parties, and both "liberals" and "conservatives".

No one's practicing politics for the sake of public good - everyone's "politicking".

Whose agendas are the democrats promulgating? Same goes for the GOP.

Everyone's bought out by special interests, and taxpayers are just getting fked left and right.

+1

Right here.

Regardless of whether or not the writers of the constitution expected that "persons" residing in this country illegally should be counted toward the number used to apportion representatives, there is nothing in the constitution which prohibits a question regarding said person's citizenship. What violation of the constitution are you referring to?

I agree -- there is no harm in asking the citizenship question in the census. If you know that the data is already collected via the ACS, then what reason do you have to oppose its inclusion in the census?

SuperScooper2 wrote:

Count Me In wrote:

A better question would be to ask why the Democrats rely so heavily on people who are not citizens of this country. Aren't they the same party that is so concerned about "Russian Interference"? Do they not share similar concerns about citizens of other countries living among us and participating directly in our political process?

nah it's a stupid right wing question. The constitution doesn't mention counting citizens - only free people. (another discussion). so why do you Republicans only claim to love the constitution when it's politically convenient .

also the census bureau already gathers citizenship data via the ACS. But what use are facts when you can instead use fear.

The Constitution also forbids any standing army beyond a period of two years (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12), while it also requires apportionment of direct taxes (Article I, Section 9, Clause 4) and never mentions any federal authority in matters of insurance, medical care, retirement, quantitative easing, mortgage-backed securities, bail-outs, fiat currency, minimum wage, food, drugs, abortion, marriage, personal contracts, housing, education, or subsidies, among myriad others, but that hasn't prevented the Leviathan of government from ignoring the Constitution to forcibly pursue those ends. The difference between these and the Census is that the latter is less punitive:

According to the Census Bureau: "The Census Bureau is not a prosecuting agency. Failure to provide information is not likely to result in a fine. The Census Bureau staff work to achieve cooperation and high response rates by helping the public understand that responding to the ACS is a matter of civic responsibility, and prefers to encourage participation in this manner rather than prosecution."

On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing about the other aforementioned boondoggles that is voluntary. Any violations or evasions will be subject to prosecution. In the case of the Census, the US Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in the Congress. In order to accurately calculate the American population, then, the Census must ultimately distinguish citizens from non-citizens. It appears reasonable, then, that the Census Bureau would request that respondents identify their citizenship status for the poll.

vbn wrote:

The problem is there is no real data to support the hypothesis that a citizenship question will suppress or not suppress response among certain demographic groups.

Without a well-designed test we will never be able to accurately measure the impact of adding the question. This should be an issue of statistical methodology not politics.

Why do you suppose there is no data? Do you think the administration refused to test the question? Could that be the reason there is no data?

Also, I agree that this should be an issue of statistical methodology. Fortunately the Census bureau employs many statisticians. They all advised against adding he question.

Its an opinion piece wrote:

Look, it has obvious bias. I'm not opposed to a citizenship question, but it has be done correctly. That "article" uses quote without any references. They don't even say why the question is even needed.

Well, the article may not say, but the Trump administration says it was added at the request of the DOJ so that they could better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Of course the Trump DOJ has not initiated a single Voting Rights Act case...

You seem to have a hard on for voting. It’s NOT about voting. It has nothing to do with voting. It about apportionment and getting an accurate count. A count that determines representation, federal funding and host of other things.

The question disproportionately affects people of color. If 5 legal citizens are in a household and one non citizen. They whole house might decline to participate. So it has a racist effect to undercount minorities.

Many live in blue states. So it’s also a political weapon to undercount Dems.

But more to the point. Ross has no justification for adding the question. None.

That sounds like a good thing. Your argument means that the current system disproportionately affects US citizens.

Stop talking logically. Democrats won't understand one word of what you just said. They willing have shut down the parts of their brain that allows for rational thought and critical thinking. I however agree with you completely, great points!

"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."

We need to know if they are from India or are not a free person.

Nothing screams intellectually lazy like saying x group of people aren't capable of critical thinking.

don't be an idiot wrote:

vbn wrote:

The problem is there is no real data to support the hypothesis that a citizenship question will suppress or not suppress response among certain demographic groups.

Without a well-designed test we will never be able to accurately measure the impact of adding the question. This should be an issue of statistical methodology not politics.

Why do you suppose there is no data? Do you think the administration refused to test the question? Could that be the reason there is no data?

Also, I agree that this should be an issue of statistical methodology. Fortunately the Census bureau employs many statisticians. They all advised against adding he question.

Yes, I understand that the administration refused to test the question and that is my point - that the decision to include it is purely political.

I think it may be a legitimate question to know how many residents are non-citizens but without testing the question we will have no idea if the counts are accurate. And among non-citizens, we will still not have any idea how many of them are here legally.