# For the love of your country, fill out your census form! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 17, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713 "2010-03-17T00:55:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/81 "2010-03-17T15:41:40Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > so? more data is better than less, even if it offends your delicate sensibilities regarding the status of an adopted child. Regarding the step children, that one makes a LITTLE more sense, as step kids really do often live in two separate houses. Regarding my “delicate sensibilities,” you are taking my outrage to be way more than it is. I filled out the census, accurately and completely. It annoys me a tiny bit to have adopted and biological children differentiated, that’s all. As far as having more data rather than less, the way they gather the data isn’t really all that accurate, anyway. They only ask how persons 2-X are related to person 1. If I’m person 1, and I have bio kids in the house, but my husband is their step or adopted father, the census will never know that they aren’t his biological children. It doesn’t matter because the numbers are so huge, but I think there are much better reasons for differentiating adopted from biological than the accuracy of the numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/82 "2010-03-17T15:44:30Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Regarding the step children, that one makes a LITTLE more sense, as step kids really do often live in two separate houses. > > Regarding my “delicate sensibilities,” you are taking my outrage to be way more than it is. I filled out the census, accurately and completely. It annoys me a tiny bit to have adopted and biological children differentiated, that’s all. > > As far as having more data rather than less, the way they gather the data isn’t really all that accurate, anyway. They only ask how persons 2-X are related to person 1. If I’m person 1, and I have bio kids in the house, but my husband is their step or adopted father, the census will never know that they aren’t his biological children. It doesn’t matter because the numbers are so huge, but I think there are much better reasons for differentiating adopted from biological than the accuracy of the numbers. a) well, it does ask you who was resident in that house on April 1, 2010. If you get to plea that people shouldn’t have problems following the instructions as to who is a resident, then this isn’t a problem b) and my point is that any outrage at all is misplaced and indicative of a delicate sensibility c) they will call and follow up if they can’t do what they need to do with the data they’ve collected ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/83 "2010-03-17T15:47:15Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > a) well, it does ask you who was resident in that house on April 1, 2010. If you get to plea that people shouldn’t have problems following the instructions as to who is a resident, then this isn’t a problem Yes, and it’s also not a problem where adopted children are concerned. You were the one who told me that people are so stupid that they don’t know when a child is theirs and living in their house or not. > [@](#): > > b) and my point is that any outrage at all is misplaced and indicative of a delicate sensibility No it’s not. > [@](#): > > c) they will call and follow up if they can’t do what they need to do with the data they’ve collected Uh…how are they going to magically know if my kids aren’t blood related to my husband again? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/84 "2010-03-17T15:53:40Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > How does that prevent people from being double-counted? Sorry; I should have realized that due to my post following a question, it would look like I was trying to answer that specific question. I just provided the cite as an answer to the question of “What could they possibly want to use the data for?”, not specifically, “How does this data prevent double-counting?” ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/85 "2010-03-17T15:54:15Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Yes, and it’s also not a problem where adopted children are concerned. You were the one who told me that people are so stupid that they don’t know when a child is theirs and living in their house or not. so, see I’m saying that it’s ok for both - people are stupid and if they aren’t given the proper prompts, they may incorrectly over or under count step and adopted children. you’re the one saying that adopted and biological parents were able to discern who was living where, but simultaneously saying that step parents weren’t able to do the same. i pointed out that the information given on the face of the form is sufficient to answer both types of issues - if the parents can figure it out properly - as a rejoinder to your assertion that step parents need the prompt but adopting/biological parents don’t. I’m not so sure why you’re fixated on double counting as if that’s the only justification I gave for the validity of asking if the child is adopted. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/86 "2010-03-17T16:00:42Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > so, see I’m saying that it’s ok for both - people are stupid and if they aren’t given the proper prompts, they may incorrectly over or under count step and adopted children. you’re the one saying that adopted and biological parents were able to discern who was living where, but simultaneously saying that step parents weren’t able to do the same. i pointed out that the information given on the face of the form is sufficient to answer both types of issues - if the parents can figure it out properly - as a rejoinder to your assertion that step parents need the prompt but adopting/biological parents don’t. Because step children really DO live in two residences, and adopted children generally don’t. I find the former to have much greater potential for confusion than the latter. > [@](#): > > I’m not so sure why you’re fixated on double counting as if that’s the only justification I gave for the validity of asking if the child is adopted. Because you said: [QUOTE=you] First off, the short form doesn’t even ask about adoption status, at least not in any place that I noticed it But let’s ignore that. People are, on average, stupid. If you don’t distinguish between adopted and biological children, biological parents may very well answer that they have a child (even though technically it’s no longer theirs), and hypersensitive adoptive parents will for sure answer that they have that same child. ergo, the double counting. And let’s just ignore this and get to the root of the issue: there’s a slight difference between a biological child and an adopted child, and there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting to glean statistics from adopted as opposed to biological children, your (global you) offense notwithstanding. [/QUOTE] You mentioned the accurate counting thing, then you said there is a difference between adopted and biological children, and that there are valid reasons for wanting the statistics to show adopted children. But, you didn’t tell me what those reasons are. You might notice that **MsWhatsit** gave me some of those reasons, and I’m not arguing with her. I just think that the accurate counting thing is a stupid reason, and probably not one of the actual reasons, either. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/87 "2010-03-17T16:01:32Z")
> [@bup](#): > > That’s naive. State legislatures can unfairly ghetto-ize congressional districts without census data. If by “ghetto-ize,” you mean “draw up districts so that minority neighborhoods are kept seperate from white ones,” you are mistaken. Most minority groups _want_ districts gerrymandered to create designated “black” or “hispanic” district. The political class in general, on both sides of the aisle, want to make as many safe, noncompetitive districts as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/88 "2010-03-17T16:01:53Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Sorry; I should have realized that due to my post following a question, it would look like I was trying to answer that specific question. I just provided the cite as an answer to the question of “What could they possibly want to use the data for?”, not specifically, “How does this data prevent double-counting?” Sorry, I missed your point there. But, yeah, I get there are actual reasons, even though it personally makes me uncomfortable. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/89 "2010-03-17T16:13:20Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Because you said: > > You mentioned the accurate counting thing, then you said there is a difference between adopted and biological children, and that there are valid reasons for wanting the statistics to show adopted children. But, you didn’t tell me what those reasons are. > > You might notice that **MsWhatsit** gave me some of those reasons, and I’m not arguing with her. I just think that the accurate counting thing is a stupid reason, and probably not one of the actual reasons, either. no, what i actually said was this: “what are you talking about, adopted kids are exactly the same as biological children and there shouldn’t be any distinction drawn! especially since there’s no chance that if this distinction isn’t made, some group of children (who, you know, I can’t identify at all because they are all my children, and absolutely all the same) may be double counted!” the “especially since” is a tip off that what follows isn’t the exclusive justification given for the antecedent sentence, rather it’s an add-on supplementary reason. at this point I’m just picking out a reason out of the hat to further draw out the ramblings of an outraged adoptive parent in an attempt to color my post, not to make some claim that double counting is the big reason why they ask. then, you countered: > [@](#): > > I don’t understand that at all. How are they going to prevent people from being double counted? to which I answered: First off, the short form doesn’t even ask about adoption status, at least not in any place that I noticed it (which was demonstrably wrong) But let’s ignore that. People are, on average, stupid. If you don’t distinguish between adopted and biological children, biological parents may very well answer that they have a child (even though technically it’s no longer theirs), and hypersensitive adoptive parents will for sure answer that they have that same child. ergo, the double counting. (at this point I am further explaining my, remember, supplementary rationale without approaching the first point, namely: “what are you talking about, adopted kids are exactly the same as biological children and there shouldn’t be any distinction drawn!” i.e. a sarcastic point that there are valid justifications to distinguish between the two. which is expounded upon by) And let’s just ignore this and get to the root of the issue: there’s a slight difference between a biological child and an adopted child, and there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting to glean statistics from adopted as opposed to biological children, your (global you) offense notwithstanding. (at which point I hit “Submit” perfectly content that this was such a plainly obvious statement that it didn’t require explaining. Then I scroll up and see that “MsWhatsit” has gone ahead and provided the reasoning. I figure that we’re done here, and yet you come back and keep blabbing on about how double counting is just not at all a concern (which, to me, it is, however slight) and acting as if that’s my only concern.) ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/90 "2010-03-17T16:14:19Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Uh-oh. There was an income question? I don’t remember seeing that, and it’s already sealed up and ready for the mail. > > Seriously, fast food surveys ask me more invasive questions, and I’ll do that for a free burger. This is basic civic duty on par with jury duty, and it’s vastly less onerous. Hell, I’ve spent more time filling out surveys for Best Buy telling them why they suck just so I can be entered in a drawing for a gift card. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/91 "2010-03-17T16:18:44Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Uh-oh. There was an income question? I don’t remember seeing that, and it’s already sealed up and ready for the mail. I didn’t see one either, and I was vaguely expecting one, so I read back over the whole form again. I don’t think either of us missed it. > [@statsman1982](#): > > I don’t know if this is a myth or what, but I have heard that some survivors have been mistrustful of censuses, since presumably that is how the Nazis knew who had Jewish ancestry. IIRC, they definitely used synagogue member lists. Dunno if they used census records. > [@Green\_Bean](#): > > Spinach? Unconstitutional! That last one is actually accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/92 "2010-03-17T16:22:05Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > no, what i actually said was this: > > “what are you talking about, adopted kids are exactly the same as biological children and there shouldn’t be any distinction drawn! especially since there’s no chance that if this distinction isn’t made, some group of children (who, you know, I can’t identify at all because they are all my children, and absolutely all the same) may be double counted!” > > the “especially since” is a tip off that what follows isn’t the exclusive justification given for the antecedent sentence, rather it’s an add-on supplementary reason. at this point I’m just picking out a reason out of the hat to further draw out the ramblings of an outraged adoptive parent in an attempt to color my post, not to make some claim that double counting is the big reason why they ask. > then, you countered: > > to which I answered: > > First off, the short form doesn’t even ask about adoption status, at least not in any place that I noticed it > > (which was demonstrably wrong) > > But let’s ignore that. People are, on average, stupid. If you don’t distinguish between adopted and biological children, biological parents may very well answer that they have a child (even though technically it’s no longer theirs), and hypersensitive adoptive parents will for sure answer that they have that same child. ergo, the double counting. > > (at this point I am further explaining my, remember, supplementary rationale without approaching the first point, namely: “what are you talking about, adopted kids are exactly the same as biological children and there shouldn’t be any distinction drawn!” i.e. a sarcastic point that there are valid justifications to distinguish between the two. which is expounded upon by) > And let’s just ignore this and get to the root of the issue: there’s a slight difference between a biological child and an adopted child, and there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting to glean statistics from adopted as opposed to biological children, your (global you) offense notwithstanding. > > (at which point I hit “Submit” perfectly content that this was such a plainly obvious statement that it didn’t require explaining. Then I scroll up and see that “MsWhatsit” has gone ahead and provided the reasoning. I figure that we’re done here, and yet you come back and keep blabbing on about how double counting is just not at all a concern (which, to me, it is, however slight) and acting as if that’s my only concern.) First of all, I’m not an adoptive parent. Second of all, take a look at your post I just quoted and tell me who is rambling again? Finally, you didn’t provide the reasons, and **MsWhatsit** did. They seemed like valid reasons, no need for me to argue them. The reason YOU gave, however, seemed bogus and it still does, so I argued with it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/93 "2010-03-17T16:24:56Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > First off, the short form doesn’t even ask about adoption status, at least not in any place that I noticed it > > But let’s ignore that. People are, on average, stupid. If you don’t distinguish between adopted and biological children, biological parents may very well answer that they have a child (even though technically it’s no longer theirs), and hypersensitive adoptive parents will for sure answer that they have that same child. ergo, the double counting. That’s what the “Does this person live here all the time, or live somewhere else?” question is for. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/94 "2010-03-17T16:26:13Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > I realize that you are being facetious, but there are laws that require compliance to ensure that blacks and other minorities aren’t being disenfranchised and that legislative districts aren’t being gerrymandered on the basis of race or ethnicity. Consequently, the Census has the authority and mandate to ask about race. Again, if this is so offensive to you, you don’t have to give your race, or you can list Wookiee or whatever cute response you want, but accurate data on race and ethnicity is important. I think it’s the opposite. I think the Census data has been specifically used to gerrymander to dilute the minority vote (not to prevent it) and used by individuals and businesses to cherry-pick areas based on the racial make up of the population. _The government has no business asking about race or ethnicity_. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the U.S (as a friend-of-the-court brief ) held the view that there should be “racial neutrality in governmental decision making”; it seems to me, that asking about ethnicity in order to “correct inequalities” goes against that. Whatever happened to the we’re all equal, there no differences, race doesn’t exist, we’re all just Americans blahblahblah? I don’t like the fact the federal funds are given based on total head count and not U.S citizens. I also don’t like that 1/5 of the Census is devoted to questions about race and that this information is made publically available on a website, no less. If there was a 72 year lag before that data was released, I would have no problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/95 "2010-03-17T16:26:36Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Also, US Census data were used to facilitate the WWII Japanese-American internments. The Census Bureau also [provided](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics/30census.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091193438-xlSWzjtopnEJGttY4OfI6g&pagewanted=print&position=) data to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, showing where self-identified Arab populations live in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/96 "2010-03-17T16:26:41Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > Uh, you don’t know where the black people live? Really? Seriously? You don’t think your state representatives, like, live where you do? From some source of arcane knowledge not available to the federal civil rights enforcement division, so that they must needs obtain this data elsewhere to do their jobs? No. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/97 "2010-03-17T16:26:41Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > First of all, I’m not an adoptive parent. > > Second of all, you didn’t provide the reasons, and **MsWhatsit** did. They seemed like valid reasons, no need for me to argue them. The reason YOU gave, however, seemed bogus and it still does, so I argued with it. first of all, that’s why (global you) was written into the post - I don’t give two shits about your parenting situation, or your lack thereof. MsWhatsit’s post was authored as I was authoring mine, and I saw no need to go back and amend my post to reference it. And you really don’t think that knowing whether a child is full-on biological, adopted, or step has any importance whatsoever in obtaining a full and accurate count of the US population? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/98 "2010-03-17T16:30:05Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > first of all, that’s why (global you) was written into the post - I don’t give two shits about your parenting situation, or your lack thereof. You didn’t write the following in reference to me? [QUOTE=You] at this point I’m just picking out a reason out of the hat to further draw out the ramblings of an outraged adoptive parent in an attempt to color my post, not to make some claim that double counting is the big reason why they ask. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > MsWhatsit’s post was authored as I was authoring mine, and I saw no need to go back and amend my post to reference it. I didn’t say you should have. I said that the reason you gave was bogus, and you gave no other reasons. > [@](#): > > And you really don’t think that knowing whether a child is full-on biological, adopted, or step has any importance whatsoever in obtaining a full and accurate count of the US population? :dubious: No. I think that there are some potentially helpful and valid reasons to ask. Getting an accurate count is not one of them, as far as I can see. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/99 "2010-03-17T16:30:57Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > I don’t like the fact the federal funds are given based on total head count and not U.S citizens. So, if someone lives in an area that has a lot of people who aren’t citizens (note: may include people who have never been in the country legally, who aren’t citizens but are legal residents, or who were once legal residents but no longer are), they should just get fucked on funding, even though they’d have much greater demand for the services in question than an area with an equivalent number of citizens but no non-citizens? Maybe we can put in a tax on unicorn farms to subsidize the extra costs. I bet you’d love that idea. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713/100 "2010-03-17T16:34:23Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Seriously, fast food surveys ask me more invasive questions, and I’ll do that for a free burger. This is basic civic duty on par with jury duty, and it’s vastly less onerous. > > Hell, I’ve spent more time filling out surveys for Best Buy telling them why they suck just so I can be entered in a drawing for a gift card. But that’s your choice. Possibly someone else doesn’t want to fill out some corporation’s survey, whether the offer is for a free burger or a gift-card drawing or thousands of dollars; so long as we’re talking about private companies, people can keep on cheerfully telling 'em to go to hell. I don’t care what your choice is; I care that it’s your choice, is all. But, to quote Lightray: > [@](#): > > When I saw the big ol note “US Census Form Enclosed YOUR RESPONSE IS REQURED BY LAW” on the envelope, I just knew it would send the conspiracy nutters into a frothing frenzy. > > But… really, Census Bureau? You want to imply that you’ll arrest people who don’t fill out their census form? Really? If a fast-food company or a store employee asks me my race, I can walk away no matter that they offer me a burger or a gift-card. If the government asks me, I – ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-the-love-of-your-country-fill-out-your-census-form/532713.md?page=6)