Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:55 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
If there's not a constitutional question about the citizenship question, why is the Supreme Court reviewing the case?
The Supreme Court can hear cases other than those that have a constitutional question.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #52  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:59 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post

Meanwhile, Title 13, Section 9 says:

"(a) Neither the Secretary [of Commerce], nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997—
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.
No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding."
The question is would you bet your home, family and livelihood on an administration that has shown complete disregard for the rule of law and personal hatred towards you and your kind, not "accidentally" releasing it to people it shouldn't?
  #53  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:00 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree, and yet four justices are likely to vote against the administration, because:
As have all of the other judges on its path up to the supreme court.
  #54  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:18 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
if that's the case, and Commerce has carte blanche to run the census any way it wants, why did Wilbur Ross lie so much about the reasons for including the question?
Even if in general collecting statistical information is permissible, it can't be motivated by impermissible reasons. If the purpose was to discriminate, then an otherwise legal action could be transformed into something illegal.

I mean, you know that already. But I typed it so I'm posting it.

My view - I think this wont make much difference, I think the question of law is pretty straight forward, and should have been included from inception.
  #55  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:24 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
If there's not a constitutional question about the citizenship question, why is the Supreme Court reviewing the case?
Because the Trump Administration lost at the district level, and applied for cert. Here are the QP:

Quote:
(1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
  #56  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:32 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
How is the Supreme Court making a law here?
Because
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum
The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct.
Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the "the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary"
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress has directed the Secretary to conduct in a certain way, including questions about how many bathrooms you have and do you own a radio and are you a citizen. So the liberals on the Court want to overturn both the law and the Constitution, by saying No, Congress may not direct.
Quote:
The constitution demands we hold a census every ten years. If the administration decides to do something that imperils that count happening or damage its accuracy it is absolutely the place of the court to stop it and see that the constitutional directive is carried out appropriately.
We are going to have a census. And it is being carried out as the Constitution directs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole
So if the Secretary of Commerce only wants to send the census to heterosexual people that'd be ok?
They couldn't only send it to heterosexuals. They could, I suppose, include questions about sexual orientation, and if Congress didn't like it, Congress could overrule those questions.

Of course, the question "what gender are you?" would make the census form twenty pages longer from all the combinations and permutations.

Regards,
Shodan
  #57  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:38 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
The problem is that if immigrants disproportionately avoid returning census forms, States with lots of immigrants will lose out on Congressional representation.
And that THAT'S THE POINT OF THE QUESTION. This is like "voter ID laws." It's not solving -- nor is it INTENDED to solve -- any question. It's only being brought up as a way to suppress non-GOP votes. Nobody actually cares about the actual answer to the question.
  #58  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:41 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress has directed the Secretary to conduct in a certain way, including questions about how many bathrooms you have and do you own a radio and are you a citizen. So the liberals on the Court want to overturn both the law and the Constitution, by saying No, Congress may not direct.
You seem to be arguing that the Supreme Court has no authority to decide whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not.
  #59  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:42 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress has directed the Secretary to conduct in a certain way, including questions about how many bathrooms you have and do you own a radio and are you a citizen. So the liberals on the Court want to overturn both the law and the Constitution, by saying No, Congress may not direct.
That's not the argument either. The question presented is in part, whether the Secretary employed impermissible reasoning in including the question. That's not wanting to overturn the law and the Constitution. If the Secretary made his decision because he hates Hispanic people, wants them to not respond to the census, and is trying to discriminate against them because of their race, then that's forbidden. Forbidding that type of reasoning is wholly consistent with the constitution.
  #60  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:10 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
You seem to be arguing that the Supreme Court has no authority to decide whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not.
I'm arguing what I usually argue in cases like this - the Constitution says what it says, not what liberals want it to say. The Constitution says the census shall be carried out as Congress directs. The liberals on the Court want the Constitution to say the census shall be carried out as they direct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
That's not the argument either. The question presented is in part, whether the Secretary employed impermissible reasoning in including the question. That's not wanting to overturn the law and the Constitution. If the Secretary made his decision because he hates Hispanic people, wants them to not respond to the census, and is trying to discriminate against them because of their race, then that's forbidden. Forbidding that type of reasoning is wholly consistent with the constitution.
Then the remedy is for Congress to modify the law to say "you can't include citizenship questions because you hate Hispanics - you can only include them if you want to know how many people are non-citizens." That way, Congress is fulfilling their Constitutional duty of directing the census.

If people are afraid to fill out the census because they think they will be deported if they answer it, then they need to be reassured that census information cannot and will not be used against them, or released to the INS, or anything like that. Just like filing your taxes - it is strictly confidential. Unless the House Judiciary committee wants to have a peek, but that probably won't happen.

Regards,
Shodan
  #61  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:12 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,647
I haven't kept up with the details of this case that closely. Is there a reason that some of you all think Roberts has already made up his mind that he is going to side with the administration?
  #62  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:15 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm arguing what I usually argue in cases like this - the Constitution says what it says, not what liberals want it to say. The Constitution says the census shall be carried out as Congress directs. The liberals on the Court want the Constitution to say the census shall be carried out as they direct.
[snip]
Regards,
Shodan
You have some fascinating insight into the minds of "liberals" to know what they want the Constitution to say and how they want the census directed. You should go on the road with such Kreskin-like powers. I hear sideshows are making a comeback. (Just look at Trump's rallies.)



Expectorations,
CaptMurdock
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #63  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:17 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then the remedy is for Congress to modify the law to say "you can't include citizenship questions because you hate Hispanics - you can only include them if you want to know how many people are non-citizens." That way, Congress is fulfilling their Constitutional duty of directing the census.
Congress doesn't need to modify the law because this is already the law. The status quo would certainly be consistent with a prohibition on questions being asked because of animosity towards a certain ethnicity or race.

Separately, Congress can certainly direct the census more explicitly than they have, and either require or prohibit citizenship questions. The fact that they didn't, even knowing this was going to occur, is part of the reason that the Court may side with the administration.

My point is, that the court taking this case, and the questions presented, whether they agree or disagree, etc., does not
mean that the liberals on the court want to overturn the law and constitution. That's not even close to a fair presentation of the issue.
  #64  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:23 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The Constitution says the census shall be carried out as Congress directs. ...
Then the remedy is for Congress to modify the law to say "you can't include citizenship questions because you hate Hispanics - you can only include them if you want to know how many people are non-citizens." That way, Congress is fulfilling their Constitutional duty of directing the census.
Hold on a second -- I'm going to walk you through the broad steps here.

1. Congress never directed the Commerce Department to include the question on the census.
2. Ross took it upon himself to add the question under the gloss of broad authority delegated by Congress to Commerce.
3. Experts within the Commerce Department say that the question will undermine responses.
4. When questioned about why he added the question, Ross lied repeatedly about the origin and the intent of adding the question.

So now because an Executive Branch official is taking a capricious action for which he cannot even provide a half-serious (or vaguely truthful) answer to the courts, it is up to Congress and NOT the courts to prevent the Executive Branch from doing stupid things with the clear intent to produce a political/electoral, rather than a governmental/policy, outcome?
  #65  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:24 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then the remedy is for Congress to modify the law to say "you can't include citizenship questions because you hate Hispanics - you can only include them if you want to know how many people are non-citizens." That way, Congress is fulfilling their Constitutional duty of directing the census.

Regards,
Shodan
Certainly you don't believe this. You don't believe that Congress needs to pass a law saying that taking the Census must be done in a non-discriminatory fashion? Do you believe every law that Congress passes must include language which says the law is to be executed in a way which is non-discriminatory? Isn't it automatic? And isn't it automatic that if a law has the effect of discrimination whether or not that was the intent, it can then be challenged? That is certainly how we've been operating
  #66  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:24 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm arguing what I usually argue in cases like this - the Constitution says what it says, not what liberals want it to say. The Constitution says the census shall be carried out as Congress directs. The liberals on the Court want the Constitution to say the census shall be carried out as they direct.
So, in your view, if congress wanted to defund the Commerce department and said the census will consist of two democrats who will guess, as best they can, the population of each state that would be ok.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #67  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:32 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm arguing what I usually argue in cases like this - the Constitution says what it says, not what liberals want it to say. The Constitution says the census shall be carried out as Congress directs. The liberals on the Court want the Constitution to say the census shall be carried out as they direct.
Then the remedy is for Congress to modify the law to say "you can't include citizenship questions because you hate Hispanics - you can only include them if you want to know how many people are non-citizens." That way, Congress is fulfilling their Constitutional duty of directing the census.
But the Constitution says a lot of things. If Congress passes a law as directed by one part of the Constitution but violate another part of the Constitution, then the SCOTUS has the authority and the obligation to strike down that law.
  #68  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:33 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
You know what I find amusing? Republicans are now saying that it doesn't matter if we make the Census less accurate. But last cycle, when there was the question of whether the Census should use statistical estimations to make the Census less accurate, the same Republicans were wholeheartedly against that, on the grounds that the Census constitutionally absolutely must be 100% accurate. It's almost as though they don't care about pesky little details like truth and the Constitution, and just want to do whatever benefits their party, no matter the consequences.
  #69  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:16 PM
Drum God is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Central Texas, USA
Posts: 2,191
Ours is a nation of over 300 million people spread across a vast geographical area. Is it possible that, regardless of the citizenship question, the Constitution is demanding something that simply cannot be done? Is it even possible to count so many people, some of whom don't want to be counted for whatever reason?
__________________
At the feast of ego, everyone leaves hungry.
  #70  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:18 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You know what I find amusing? Republicans are now saying that it doesn't matter if we make the Census less accurate. But last cycle, when there was the question of whether the Census should use statistical estimations to make the Census less accurate, the same Republicans were wholeheartedly against that, on the grounds that the Census constitutionally absolutely must be 100% accurate. It's almost as though they don't care about pesky little details like truth and the Constitution, and just want to do whatever benefits their party, no matter the consequences.
On most every political issue, there is the surface motive, and the real motive.
  #71  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:45 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drum God View Post
Ours is a nation of over 300 million people spread across a vast geographical area. Is it possible that, regardless of the citizenship question, the Constitution is demanding something that simply cannot be done? Is it even possible to count so many people, some of whom don't want to be counted for whatever reason?
It would be impossible to be 100% accurate but they do the best they can and get pretty close (relatively speaking).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #72  
Old 04-25-2019, 06:48 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
No, they don't do the best they can, because the Republicans won't let them.
  #73  
Old 04-25-2019, 06:59 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
No, they don't do the best they can, because the Republicans won't let them.
Well, at least everyone has free and equal access to the voting booths at election time, thanks to the efforts of Republicans.
  #74  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:11 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drum God View Post
... Is it possible that, regardless of the citizenship question, the Constitution is demanding something that simply cannot be done? Is it even possible to count so many people, some of whom don't want to be counted for whatever reason?
Sooo, let's add an unnecessary question that is likely to make the reults less accurate?
  #75  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:22 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
No, they don't do the best they can, because the Republicans won't let them.
They do the best they can within the limits republicans place on them.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #76  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:43 PM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,338
The SCOTUS is unlikely to accept two arguments that have been pushed by opponents of the citizenship question. The first of those is the argument about constitutionality.
The justices added a question for the parties to argue about whether such a question is a violation of the Enumeration Clause because lower courts split on the issue. However precedent is strong that the census is not limited to merely taking a head count. I wouldn't be surprised on a near unanimous ruling on that question which would affirm that while a citizenship question is not constitutionally required, it is also not constitutionally prohibited.

T second shaky argument is that the census would be better without the citizenship question. That would necessitate substituting their own judgement for that of the Commerce Secretary to whom authority over the census was granted by Congress. The conservative majority on the high court would be loathe to accept such reasoning as it might invite literal legislating from the bench.

However there are routes that Roberts (let's face it, he's the most likely swing vote here) could take that could derail the citizenship question. An underlying legal issue is whether the proposed change to census questions is something that requires a notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act and whether Ross complied with other aspects of the APA in making the change. A ruling that the manner in which the question was added was improper could mean that there is not enough time to go back and do it the proper way before critical deadlines pass. That could end up with such a question being off the 2020 census, but permissible in 2030 if the proper process is carried out. It is a sort of technical narrow ruling that could piss everyone off in the long run.

Or a route that could get possible buy-in from other conservative justices would be to declare that it was unconstitutional for Congress to delegate their authority over the census to the Executive branch to begin with. Such a ruling could have wide reaching consequences (e.g. might mean Congress delegating to the Secretary of HHS the authority to determine what exactly must be covered under Obamacare was improper) over many instances where the Legislative branch has delegated legislative functions to the Executive branch. I'd rate that option quite unlikely, but it could be a devil's bargain that could swing a vote or two. Kill the citizenship question on the census now if it means reigning in this delegation of authority that Congress has done repeatedly.
  #77  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:40 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants, there is no way that asking about illegals is unconstitutional. It is an obvious decision.
That is horse shit for the simple fact that a census is a census, meaning that the design of a census questionnaire should be designed so that it does not discourage participation. Otherwise, what's the fucking point of a census?
  #78  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:19 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
To intimidate non-citizens living in the U.S.A.?
  #79  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:49 AM
carlb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palmetto Bay, FL
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
However there are routes that Roberts (let's face it, he's the most likely swing vote here) could take that could derail the citizenship question. An underlying legal issue is whether the proposed change to census questions is something that requires a notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act and whether Ross complied with other aspects of the APA in making the change. A ruling that the manner in which the question was added was improper could mean that there is not enough time to go back and do it the proper way before critical deadlines pass. That could end up with such a question being off the 2020 census, but permissible in 2030 if the proper process is carried out. It is a sort of technical narrow ruling that could piss everyone off in the long run.
This would be a very Roberts-like thing to do, wouldn't it? Rule as narrowly as possible to keep SCOTUS above the fray and out of thorny political arguments. Not sure if this is a likely ruling, but it does seem like something he could wrangle into a 5-4 majority decision that kicks the can down the road.
  #80  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:19 AM
Doctor Jackson's Avatar
Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Jawja
Posts: 10,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
The problem is that if immigrants disproportionately avoid returning census forms, States with lots of immigrants will lose out on Congressional representation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
And that THAT'S THE POINT OF THE QUESTION. This is like "voter ID laws." It's not solving -- nor is it INTENDED to solve -- any question. It's only being brought up as a way to suppress non-GOP votes. Nobody actually cares about the actual answer to the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
To intimidate non-citizens living in the U.S.A.?
And my stance is this - You (nor I) can possibly know for sure the effect of adding/re-adding a citizenship question to the census because:
1) no one knows how many people in the country illegally return the forms now (my guess, based on 2010 census return rates, is damn few)
2) no one knows how many people in the country illegally would return the form and lie about citizenship

Without further evidence, I am of the belief that this question will not move the population count needle significantly in either direction.

Last edited by Doctor Jackson; 04-26-2019 at 08:19 AM.
  #81  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:01 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 83,232
Here's CNN Politics on what the Supreme Court is doing behind closed doors these days: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/polit...ors/index.html
  #82  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:04 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson View Post
And my stance is this - You (nor I) can possibly know for sure the effect of adding/re-adding a citizenship question to the census because:
1) no one knows how many people in the country illegally return the forms now (my guess, based on 2010 census return rates, is damn few)
2) no one knows how many people in the country illegally would return the form and lie about citizenship

Without further evidence, I am of the belief that this question will not move the population count needle significantly in either direction.
So don't add it unnecessarily, then?
  #83  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:12 AM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I wonder if we're not overthinking this - is there empirical evidence that such a question discourages participation?
Here’s a description of one study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.5c24fe7d2b37
Quote:
The second piece of evidence comes from an experiment embedded in these surveys. All respondents were asked whether they would complete the census, but a random half of respondents were told that it would include a citizenship question.

Barreto and George Washington University political scientist Chris Warshaw found that respondents told about a citizenship question were less likely to say they would take the census. The citizenship question caused a drop of more than two percentage points among all respondents. It caused six-point drop among Latinos and an 11-point drop among those who are foreign born.
It discourages participation by people here legally, too, and even by citizens who have foreign nationals in their households. And that’s the reason for asking it.
  #84  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:20 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,258
If the Trump administration wanted to be really in-your-face, they could have added a question: "If you are an immigrant in the U.S., are you here legally?"
  #85  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:32 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
Here’s a description of one study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.5c24fe7d2b37
It discourages participation by people here legally, too, and even by citizens who have foreign nationals in their households. And that’s the reason for asking it.
Thanks for the link, and definitely worth some thought. That's pretty much what I was looking for.

FTR, I've been opposed to the question all along for a variety of reasons. It seems clear that the administration believes they benefit by inserting it into the questionnaire; I just didn't know if there was any actual evidence that founded the concerns that have been discussed here and in the media.
  #86  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:36 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If the Trump administration wanted to be really in-your-face, they could have added a question: "If you are an immigrant in the U.S., are you here legally?"
Many immigrants come from countries where they learn to fear direct interaction with any governmental authority or bureaucracy. Just by listening to other Americans, they probably learn to fear the IRS pretty quickly, and they are constantly dealing with DHS, which can revoke their status for something as trivial as filling out a form incorrectly. It's understandable that they would fear participating in a census, particularly one that is interested in their citizenship status.
  #87  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:47 AM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If the Trump administration wanted to be really in-your-face, they could have added a question: "If you are an immigrant in the U.S., are you here legally?"
It would be hard to hide that behind the “enforcing the VRA” fig leaf. My understanding is that they could do what you suggest, or do something really insane like just go back to knocking on doors and counting noses, as long as they follow the laws about making such changes. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...-it-ncna959486
Quote:
The court also determined that Ross failed to comply with a statutory requirement when adding the question: he law requires that the department give at least three years notice before the addition of any question to the census. So, in its haste to attack disfavored minorities, the Trump administration once again got sloppy, and in this case failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and the 1976 Census Act.
(No, they didn’t do that with this question either, but they manufactured a fig leaf to hide behind.)
  #88  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:50 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson View Post
And my stance is this - You (nor I) can possibly know for sure the effect of adding/re-adding a citizenship question to the census because:
1) no one knows how many people in the country illegally return the forms now (my guess, based on 2010 census return rates, is damn few)
2) no one knows how many people in the country illegally would return the form and lie about citizenship

Without further evidence, I am of the belief that this question will not move the population count needle significantly in either direction.
What expectation is there that this question will result in useful information for the government?

If you were in the US illegally would you answer "yes" on a document that the government sent you asking if you were here illegally?

The question is only to intimidate and it can only hurt census results. Even if not a lot why put it there when it serves no useful purpose?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #89  
Old 04-26-2019, 10:43 AM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The question is only to intimidate and it can only hurt census results. Even if not a lot why put it there when it serves no useful purpose?
This change will have bad effects, and was defended in bad faith. All that is true.

What’s maybe worse is that the SCOTUS may sign off on a violation of law here. IANAL, of course, but it looks like Ross skirted the requirements for changes and manufactured a justification for doing so.
Allowing bad policy is one thing, because we don’t agree on what makes policy bad. That’s politics.
Letting rule of law issues slide because IOKIYAR and people were mean to Brett Kavanaugh? That’s frickin’ dangerous.
  #90  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:05 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But last cycle, when there was the question of whether the Census should use statistical estimations to make the Census less accurate, the same Republicans were wholeheartedly against that, on the grounds that the Census constitutionally absolutely must be 100% accurate.
Actually the statistical analysis was to make the census more accurate but no longer a strict enumeration. Basically the statisticians wanted estimate the under count and use it to correct the totals, while the Republicans wanted to only use the raw counts effectively assume the under count was zero, using as their basis the claim that since 18th century legislators didn't know modern statistical techniques using them is unconstitutional. Effectively the same reasoning that leads to the second amendment only applying to flintlocks.

In any case the Republicans have been consistent in their desire for an inaccurate census.
  #91  
Old 04-26-2019, 02:33 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
D'oh, I meant to write "more", there, not "less". Democrats wanted estimations because in the real world, they actually are more accurate. Republicans didn't want them, because without them, it was easier to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that it was more accurate.
  #92  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:05 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Many immigrants come from countries where they learn to fear direct interaction with any governmental authority or bureaucracy.
And the current Trump GOP has given extensive examples of why that's a completely rational position to hold in the US if you're a woman, non-white, non-Christian, non-American born, trans, gay, resident of a blue state, person who needs health care, unemployed, disabled .....
  #93  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:29 PM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Actually the statistical analysis was to make the census more accurate but no longer a strict enumeration. Basically the statisticians wanted estimate the under count and use it to correct the totals, while the Republicans wanted to only use the raw counts effectively assume the under count was zero, using as their basis the claim that since 18th century legislators didn't know modern statistical techniques using them is unconstitutional. Effectively the same reasoning that leads to the second amendment only applying to flintlocks.

In any case the Republicans have been consistent in their desire for an inaccurate census.
The Constitution specifies an "Actual Enumeration". So, by all means use estimates to improve the counting process, but the results have to be based on the actual numbers.
  #94  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:41 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think there's a constitutional issue with the citizenship question.
I do. I think requiring a response to that question may violate the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
  #95  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:44 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
The Constitution specifies an "Actual Enumeration". So, by all means use estimates to improve the counting process, but the results have to be based on the actual numbers.
Sure. And they do.

But a perfect count of the population is impossible for a number of reasons. Not least of which because that number is changing minute by minute as people are born and die (a little math suggests a bit over five people per minute die in the US, on average and a bit over seven people are born per minute).

At some point you just have to say it's close enough. The statistical estimates can help dial that in a little tighter.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 04-26-2019 at 03:46 PM.
  #96  
Old 04-26-2019, 04:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I do. I think requiring a response to that question may violate the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
I don't think it does. It is not illegal to be in the United States and not be a citizen. The question does not ask if you crossed the border illegally or indeed if you are here illegally (which is only a civil infraction).
  #97  
Old 04-26-2019, 04:58 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,997
Those who support adding the question, what is it that this question will accomplish? And how will that be useful?

Last edited by bobot; 04-26-2019 at 04:59 PM.
  #98  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:34 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
And also the U.N. recommends strong gun laws. How about you get your census question, and we get better gun laws, and we call it even?
For one thing, the UN doesn't override our Constitution, nor should it.

It's not hard to imagine why a majority in Great Britain don't want the EU controlling their laws.
  #99  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:26 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
For one thing, the UN doesn't override our Constitution, nor should it.

It's not hard to imagine why a majority in Great Britain don't want the EU controlling their laws.
So why should we listen to the UN about our census?

Congrats on an actual follow-up post. Let's go for two in a row!
  #100  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:00 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Those who support adding the question, what is it that this question will accomplish? And how will that be useful?
I think it eminently important that a country might want to know how many people in its population are citizens. Why wouldn't it?

If not that, then what is the need for all of these other questions? https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about...each-question/

Should they be out as well?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017