I’ll be honest, I don’t really see what the big deal is with the citizenship question. It doesn’t just affect California; it presumably impacts Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and maybe even Florida and Georgia. All but one of those are essentially red states.
I don’t think communities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants are going to be any less ‘spooked’ by the census than they would have been in 2010.
What the holy hell are you talking about?
I just wonder how many undocumented immigrants are enthusiastic about having regular correspondence with the federal government.
Maybe he means that it’s “incentivizing illegal immigration” to let seasonal farm workers come in to pick fruit in the San Joaquin Valley, since that’s the only way the job is going to get done.
Some respondents clearly overlooked comments by a federal judge quoting GOP criminals, despite that I’d already excerpted them. I’ll try a larger font:
And …
Of the states you mention, only Texas is Red enough to figure in this kind of strategy (and Texas is much less red than California is blue).
Moreover you ignore how much power low-level individuals — and the people who hire and train them — have to impose double standards. I fully expect census workers in Texas to say things like “I’ll just write that y’all were born in the U.S.A.; okay honey? wink wink” while a census worker in California may come up with, in an extreme case “If you don’t have your birth certificates handy, I’ll come back later.”
It could happen, but that doesn’t mean it will. They’re federal workers, with essentially the same training. What you’re suggesting is that the Trump administration is going to corrupt the entire census count, which could happen, but that will happen with or without that specific question on the form.
How about a compromise? Non-voting aliens (illegal or not) count as 3/5s of a citizen.
If we want to see an example of the GOP’s efforts to undermine elections, this might actually fit the bill:
And now that Trump has an “emergency” on his hands, he’ll probably attempt to divert money within the Executive Branch as he sees fit - and we can guess where his priorities are.
If someone sneaks into your house and lives in your attic, would you consider that person a “resident” of your home?
When an illegal immigrant is found, he should be deported, not counted for census purposes, nor should the federal government studiously avoid asking the question so as to make people in the country here illegally to feel more comfortable interacting with a federal employee.
I realize that you don’t like the current immigration laws, but the remedy for that is to persuade your Congressperson to change them, not have the government actively ignore legal violations.
Yes, of course. Maybe I don’t want that person to be a resident, but the fact is that he is. If he were not a resident, then I wouldn’t have any problem with him.
And the Constitution makes it quite clear that it is residents who are to be counted for the Census, not just citizens or legal residents. I realize that you don’t like the current Constitution, but the remedy for that is to persuade Congress and the states to amend it, not having the government actively ignore its Constitutional obligations.
Have they lived there for a few days already? Then this is a bizarre and ridiculous question. I’d consider them a resident, because they are residing in my attic. That’s what the word means.
This is beyond absurd.
The Constitution actually says “Inhabitants,” but I don’t think the word choice matters. The person is not a resident nor an inhabitant. He is illegally and temporarily here until law enforcement can remove him. The person is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of the state, as he cannot pursue his profession, get most types of licensure, etc.
Equitable principles also dictate that when a text says X or Y the implication is that X or Y is lawful. The law does not reward illegal behavior.
The argument between UltraVires and those defending the Constitution is at cross-purposes. Let me try to help:
Mr. Vires — Do you understand that the Trumpists, rightly or wrongly, seek to reduce revenue and electoral power of California? I’m not asking whether or not you approve of those Trumpist goals; I’m just trying to get a handle on your grasp of the facts.
Mr. Vires — Do you understand that the Trumpists, rightly or wrongly, want to act in violation of the Constitution? I’m not asking whether their defiance of the law is good or bad; I’m just trying to get a handle on your grasp of the facts.
Thanks in advance.
If I think that the person should not be an inhabitant of my attic, and he is in fact not an inhabitant of my attic, then why am I upset about him?
Do those accused of breaking the law (whether here legally or illegally) still have rights under the law? The right to be represented by a lawyer? The right to remain silent? The right to a trial by a jury?
You need to brush up on the law. The Constitution protects all persons in the country, not just those who are here legally.
Do you not see that the mere potential for interference mandates a search for a safer method? And, that for now at least, paper ballots are inherently safer?
That you equate delusions and hallucinations - invisible birds - with election interference, is astonishing.
Of course they have those rights. I gave examples of what they are NOT entitled to have.
Do you recognize that this is the argument for voter ID? Do you favor that?
Regards,
Shodan
This is a pretty poor analogy, as the country is not a house. It is not a place where just a single family lives, it is not fully owned by a single entity, it is not as limited in space and resources, it does not take into account that the person living in your attic also fixed your dishwasher and mowed your grass, and really, pretty much everything about the analogy is falling apart.
A somewhat better analogy would be like at a night club. Say you have people who snuck in through the window, not to avoid paying the cover charge, which they are more than willing to pay, but because the bouncer has taken a personal dislike to them. They are at the bar, ordering drinks, giving you money, tipping well, and being better patrons than most of your regulars.
When they are found, should they be kicked out? If so, do you feel that that will make your nightclub better, or worse, in the long (and short) term? Say, you, I, and a half dozen others are the owners of the nightclub. How do you vote?
(personally, I vote to either fire or retrain the doorman, but given that he is apparently your brother in law, we can’t fire him, and he won’t listen to reason, we have to decide what to do with the effects of his admittance policy.)
Yes, I do see how it is relevant to the argument for voter ID.
With the disclaimer that I am at quite a distance (Canada), though, my understanding is that, in practice today, a requirement for voter ID introduces other potential problems, i.e. it selectively discourages certain classes of voters from voting. Moreover, empirical findings indicate the potential for voter ID fraud is quite limited. On the other hand, meddling with voting software has the potential for a much larger effect on elections, and could succeed in changing the results in a material way at every level.
I remain astonished.