Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:06 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
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?
Why are you asking about the American Community Survey, which is not the decennial census?
  #102  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
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.
How could it possibly do that? First off, they can't hand the information over to law enforcement, and secondly not being a citizen does not necessarily mean one is here illegally. There are various categories of non-citizen that legally reside here.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-26-2019 at 07:32 PM.
  #103  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:33 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think it eminently important that a country might want to know how many people in its population are citizens. Why wouldn't it?
..
I extend a tentative "thanks" for giving your opinion about one of the questions. Actual "thanks" is contingent on you expressing an opinion about the 2nd question, as well.
  #104  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:37 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,798
Quote:
How could it possibly do that? First off, they can't hand the information over to law enforcement, and secondly not being s citizen does not necessarily mean one is here illegally.
Ah, good! Then we may expect the conservative media outlets will earnestly inform all and sundry that there is no risk whatsoever! This is purely an exercise in civic virtue. Dark suspicions are dispelled, by the purity of Republican intentions, now and forever. Hispanic citizens can rest assured of the warm generosity of Deer Leader, and fear nothing!

And I am the Queen of Romania.

Last edited by elucidator; 04-26-2019 at 07:40 PM.
  #105  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:13 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think it eminently important that a country might want to know how many people in its population are citizens. Why wouldn't it?
Serious question - Does only the number of "Citizens" determine Representatives and such?
  #106  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:20 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
If SCOTUS upholds the citizenship question as they did Trump's "Muslim Ban", it will be rapidly careening into the realm of the "see no evil" court. Lower Courts in both cases have properly considered the clear-as-day nefarious motives that are well documented to be driving this Administration's law-making on both of these issues. Four or five members of the current Supreme Court seem happy to look the other way.
  #107  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:20 PM
Bayaker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: A town on Galveston Bay
Posts: 2,730
It seems ridiculous to me that a question about citizenship would be any more invasive than many of the other questions on the census, and I don't care if it's included or not. A decennial enumeration for congressional apportionment should be just that - a head count, and no more. I find the questions about race, income, and possessions to be especially over-the-top. It's none of anybody's business. I say do away with them all except "how many people live here?"
  #108  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:21 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Serious question - Does only the number of "Citizens" determine Representatives and such?
No, even though only citizens can vote, it is the total number of people that determines the representation.
  #109  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:28 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
By the way, this (from the Brennan Center for Justice) seems to be a good link into the perspectives and various amicus briefs by those opposing the citizenship question.

Last edited by jshore; 04-26-2019 at 08:28 PM.
  #110  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:38 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
Correction to my last post...That link actually summarizes and gives links to briefs on both sides of the question, e.g., it includes briefs by the RNC and some f-cking-crazy-looking brief by Citizens United, English First Foundation and a bunch of other right wing groups whose Table of Authorities includes the Holy Bible and rails against secular humanism and globalism.
  #111  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:56 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
Section II of the Common Cause brief [PDF] (starting on p. 13) has a lot of relevant info for this discussion, including the estimate given by the Census Bureau, based on hard analyses in regard to the American Community Survey, that the question would result in a 5.1% decline in the response from non-citizen households. The brief also documents a discussion that Ross had with the infamous Kris Kobach.
  #112  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:58 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
No, even though only citizens can vote, it is the total number of people that determines the representation.
Then why does "citizenship" matter then?
  #113  
Old 04-26-2019, 10:39 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Serious question - Does only the number of "Citizens" determine Representatives and such?
Apportionment of congressional representatives to the states is strictly and explicitly based on the whole number of residents, period.

For drawing districts within states, it's a little more fuzzy, and there's a fear by some groups that some states will use the citizenship information to draw districts with an equal number of citizens rather than an equal number of residents, and that the Supreme Court will either approve or mandate this approach in the resulting litigation.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 04-26-2019 at 10:42 PM.
  #114  
Old 04-27-2019, 05:47 AM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Then why does "citizenship" matter then?
One reason would be to provide for a properly run election. Knowing that only citizens can vote it would not be unreasonable to provide for a particular ratio of citizens of voting age to polling places without regard to number of residents.

Community A has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows that 25% (25,000) are not citizens. Of the 75% (75,000) who are citizens, 20% of those (15,000) are not of voting age leaving only 60,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for only polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community A needs 6 polling places.

Community B has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows 12.5% (12,500) are not citizens. Of the 87.5% (87,500) who are citizens, 20% of those (17,500) are not of voting age leaving only 80,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for one polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community B needs 8 polling places.


A second reason to gather citizenship data would be to determine the extent to which jury pools may be skewed by various methods of choosing jury pools. Only citizens can sit on a jury in most US jurisdictions. Often jury pools are drawn from driver's licensing records, but that excludes people who are disproportionately poor and/or medically incapable of driving. Similar problems could arise from using property tax records as a source of jury pool data.

Any method of jury selection that underrepresents particular minorities might be challenged as unconstitutional, but would need data to back up the claim. And courts could assess whether any other proposed method of selecting a jury pool is representative if they have the necessary data.



Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Census data ends up being used in many ways.
  #115  
Old 04-27-2019, 06:33 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Then why does "citizenship" matter then?
Citizenship matters to people so they can vote and permanently live in the U.S., among some other things.

The citizenship question matters to the Trump Administration so they suppress the political power of places with more immigrants.

Itís all just that simple.
  #116  
Old 04-27-2019, 09:30 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think it eminently important that a country might want to know how many people in its population are citizens. Why wouldn't it?
Sure. And the US already collects this data:

Quote:
Questions related to a personís citizenship did once appear on the census, but historians say the phrasing and intent of those earlier questions were different ó and, in any case, they were removed from the main head count after 1950 in a bid to improve the censusís accuracy. Meanwhile, social science methods have evolved to the point that high-quality citizenship data can be ó and already is ó collected via other Census Bureau surveys and administrative records. So the Trump administration is facing an important question: Why add a question to the census that could harm the quality and credibility of the data ó and also may not be necessary?

SOURCE: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ak-the-census/
So why put it on the census?
__________________
"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
  #117  
Old 04-27-2019, 09:57 AM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Community A has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows that 25% (25,000) are not citizens. Of the 75% (75,000) who are citizens, 20% of those (15,000) are not of voting age leaving only 60,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for only polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community A needs 6 polling places.

Community B has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows 12.5% (12,500) are not citizens. Of the 87.5% (87,500) who are citizens, 20% of those (17,500) are not of voting age leaving only 80,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for one polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community B needs 8 polling places.
I think your math is off: 6 x 1000 != 60000.
  #118  
Old 04-27-2019, 04:24 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,245
I think the lack of standing argument has merit. These states are saying that they MAY suffer harm, but only if a certain group acts in a stereotypical way and refuses, in violation of federal law, to respond to a question that in and of itself is not inculpatory in any way.

That's a pretty thin definition of a harm: That a third party might act illegally.

No citizen would have standing to challenge the question; I think that is agreed, so why would a state have standing? I don't know if there is a good analogy, because it is that absurd.

What else could I go to court for because a law might possibly make a third person act illegally to my detriment? My complaint would be with the third party, not with the law.

Last edited by UltraVires; 04-27-2019 at 04:25 PM.
  #119  
Old 04-27-2019, 04:33 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...only if a certain group acts in a stereotypical way and refuses, in violation of federal law, to respond to a question that in and of itself is not inculpatory in any way..
Because despite GOP beliefs that that "certain group" is stupider than good Christian White People, they aren't. Given Trump and the GOP's complete disregard for the rule of law exhibited in the last few years, you'd have to be insane to believe that they wouldn't use that question to identify and deport non-citizens, no matter what the "rules" (which don't apply to Republicans or Trump) say.

The point of this question is to make people not answer the census (nobody cares about the actual answer, we have excellent numbers for that already). If merely asking the question doesn't achieve that, do you honestly believe they won't take steps to make sure that fear of answering that question is justified? I sure don't.

Last edited by TimeWinder; 04-27-2019 at 04:36 PM.
  #120  
Old 04-27-2019, 04:39 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
The guys that enjoy ripping kids out of the arms of their parents? But of course, only the noblest and honorable motives.
  #121  
Old 04-27-2019, 05:26 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think the lack of standing argument has merit.
This has always bugged me. Not this specific case but the notion of standing.

I understand the principle and it makes sense but it seems to me a court ruling that someone does not have standing should tell us who does have standing.

And there should never, ever, be a situation where no one has standing.
__________________
"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
  #122  
Old 04-27-2019, 05:58 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
One reason would be to provide for a properly run election. Knowing that only citizens can vote it would not be unreasonable to provide for a particular ratio of citizens of voting age to polling places without regard to number of residents.

Community A has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows that 25% (25,000) are not citizens. Of the 75% (75,000) who are citizens, 20% of those (15,000) are not of voting age leaving only 60,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for only polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community A needs 6 polling places.

Community B has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows 12.5% (12,500) are not citizens. Of the 87.5% (87,500) who are citizens, 20% of those (17,500) are not of voting age leaving only 80,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for one polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community B needs 8 polling places.


Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Census data ends up being used in many ways.
Well, that could be true if the Community didn't have an actual list of the registered voters, which would give them a much more accurate number of people to expect at the pools.
  #123  
Old 04-27-2019, 07:17 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
My complaint would be with the third party, not with the law.
Thereís no law requiring what is being discussed.

Do you doubt that the only reason this question was added was to change the outcome of the census in favor of whiter states?
  #124  
Old 04-28-2019, 12:56 AM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Well, that could be true if the Community didn't have an actual list of the registered voters, which would give them a much more accurate number of people to expect at the pools.
Which would work if we ban same day voter registration, but that is oft argued as being a voter suppression measure. And having too few polling places for eligible voters, particularly in poorer minority communities, is also a commonly cited voter suppression tactic.

... and good catch to the poster who noted I was off by a factor of 10. Posting while tired does not make for accurate mental calculations.

Last edited by Iggy; 04-28-2019 at 01:00 AM.
  #125  
Old 04-29-2019, 12:34 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
...And I am the Queen of Romania.
So you're admitting that you're not a U.S. citizen?
  #126  
Old 04-29-2019, 02:51 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
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"
Necessary for what? The statute doesn't say. Perhaps there is some way some institution could weigh in on this and perhaps decide whether or not the question is in fact necessary for something.
  #127  
Old 04-29-2019, 03:59 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Then why does "citizenship" matter then?
Well the claim by the GOP states is that it will help them better compy with the Voting rights Act (which was largely defanged by the Supreme court a few years ago). The idea being that in order to be sure that they don't accidentally discriminate against Hispainc populations it is necessary to know what proportions of Hisoanics in a district can actually vote so they don't accidentally make what they think is a Hispanic majoirty district but is is only a minority Hispanic as far as eligible voters goes.

Of course given that the GOP states are doing everything under their power to disfranchise all minorities, this is rather like Nazi's claiming that they need to know where the Jews are so they can better protect them from persecution (although obviously less extreme in terms of consequences).

Last edited by Buck Godot; 04-29-2019 at 04:01 PM.
  #128  
Old 04-29-2019, 04:08 PM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Well the claim by the GOP states is that it will help them better compy with the Voting rights Act (which was largely defanged by the Supreme court a few years ago). The idea being that in order to be sure that they don't accidentally discriminate against Hispainc populations it is necessary to know what proportions of Hisoanics in a district can actually vote so they don't accidentally make what they think is a Hispanic majoirty district but is is only a minority Hispanic as far as eligible voters goes.

...
Except "Hispanic" is not an issue of citizenship. Remove the citizenship question and the census is still going to ask about race and ethnic origin.

And the Supreme Court threw out the portions of the Voting Rights Act that relied on old outdated data. If only there was a way to get updated data? Hmmm...
  #129  
Old 04-29-2019, 04:26 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Except "Hispanic" is not an issue of citizenship. Remove the citizenship question and the census is still going to ask about race and ethnic origin.

And the Supreme Court threw out the portions of the Voting Rights Act that relied on old outdated data. If only there was a way to get updated data? Hmmm...
What they claim is that they, wanting to do everything in their power to protect the voting rights of their brown brethren, might try to create a district that was 60% Hispanic voters to guarantee that this ethnic group will be able to elect someone who represents their needs. But, lacking a citizenship question, they didn't realize that a large number of those Hispanics couldn't vote, so that, horror of horrors, only 40% of the eligible voters are Hispanic and it turns out to be a majority white district. If only the evil Democrats hadn't hidden the truth from the straight shooting Republican legislature those Hispanics wouldn't have been disenfranchised. So who's the real racist here?

Last edited by Buck Godot; 04-29-2019 at 04:26 PM.
  #130  
Old 04-29-2019, 10:39 PM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,336
You do realize that you would likely need citizenship level census data to prove the dastardly scheme you allege, right?

The part of the Voting Rights Act that was ruled unconstitutional was Section 4(b) which determined which localities were subject to federal pre-clearance of changes to voting procedures. Section 4(b) was ruled unconstitutional because it relied on data such as whether ethic or minority groups in 1975 in a particular location had a lower voter registration rate than Whites.

The Supreme Court decided that the data from 1975 was no longer relevant but did not rule unconstitutional section 5 which contains the pre-clearance provisions. In essence the court said that having and using more current data was key to whether section 4(b) was constitutional leaving open to Congress to update the Voting Rights Act by legislative changes as they had done at least twice since its initial enactment.
  #131  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:07 PM
Melbourne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayaker View Post
It seems ridiculous to me that a question about citizenship would be any more invasive than many of the other questions on the census, and I don't care if it's included or not. A decennial enumeration for congressional apportionment should be just that - a head count, and no more. I find the questions about race, income, and possessions to be especially over-the-top. It's none of anybody's business. I say do away with them all except "how many people live here?"
I would suggest that (1) You are not a migrant, and (2) Your parents weren't old enough to remember WWII.

My parents were both, and retained a fear of being treated as non-citizens by the government, as were the Jews (in Euorope) and the Japanese (in the USA) and the Italians (in Aus) during WWII. I don't remember WWII except by remote association: I was young enough so that all my parents friends and relations were veterans, (and my mother was a doctor) and we were accutely aware of what happens when people are decleared as non-people.

In my country, there have been a string of well publicised cases of people finding, to their surprise, that they are citizens of a foreign country, when they run for political office or when they are convicted of crimes, and who are subsequently deported or denied employment for something that happened before they were born.

My parents couldn't conceal their immigrant status, but it was by no means something they wanted to keep on record. And one relative routinely "simplified" his country of birth, just to avoid purely hypothetical problems inspired by his observation of the treatement of "foreigners" in an occupied country in the 1940's.

In Aus, questions about origin and ethnicity, when included (it was contentious) were routinely put at the very end of the census form, and made optional, because the experience of the census office was that, on test experiments, people stopped filling in the form when they came to questions that they did not wish to answer - and that was particularly questions about origin and ethnicity.

Last edited by Melbourne; 05-08-2019 at 04:10 PM.
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 02:29 AM.

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