The final vote may still be two months away, but it looks likely that SCOTUS will give a 5-4 ruling, along partisan lines, to permit the Census to ask about citizenship.
Wouldn’t affect the 2020 election, but could redraw the map in the R’s favor, to a small extent, by the 2022 and 2024 elections.
So, Kavanaugh is doing to the country what he did to Dr Ford? I need another drink.
It would affect a number of red states, though, too - states like Texas and Florida (although not sure Florida is really a red state), Arizona as well.
Well, I’ll drink to that. (Are you noticing a theme here?)
What would happen if people just boycotted the question?
The issue is not how people answer the question. The problem is, just the fact that there is such a question on the form discourages non-citizens from responding to the whole census. I don’t see how boycotting would help alleviate that problem.
The question is necessary to provide inaccurate results.
I wonder if we’re not overthinking this - is there empirical evidence that such a question discourages participation? Or more to the point, if someone is in the United States illegally, are they really interested in communication of any kind with the federal government? Wouldn’t they lay low and avoid census questionnaires and census takers anyway? I would think that undocumented immigrants and overstayers would want to minimize their interaction with authorities of any kind, except for only the most essential situations (hospitalization, education of children, vaccinations, getting a driver’s license, etc). It’s understood that the federal government has always had the authority to deport non-citizens. I’m not saying that the question doesn’t produce a chilling effect, but I’m just wondering if there’s solid evidence that it does.
I think you’re right- it’s probably a bit of unwarrantedly dickish mustache twirling on the bit of the Republicans, and a bit of frantically unnecessary panic on the part of Democrats.
I agree with Asahi, illegals are trying to fly under the radar as much as humanly possible- they’re not going to somehow try and mooch public services, and yet be afraid to respond to the census at the same time. It’s likely that they’re going to do neither one in any event.
So the Republicans aren’t going to somehow drive these illegals into hiding any more than they already are, and nor is their supposed under representation going to deprive them of any needed humanitarian services either.
According to the UN, countries asking a citizenship question on their census is a best practice.
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?
(Not actually expecting a response to your drive-bys, but there’s maybe a 1% chance we can split this baby.)
There’s a constitutional issue with your “strong gun laws”. I don’t think there’s a constitutional issue with the citizenship question.
Sure there is. An accurate count is a constitutional duty.
Keep in mind, there may be other ulterior motives for asking the question. I could see Republicans using the results to smear diverse, left-leaning states like California and New York, agitating that certain states are home to disproportionate numbers of non-citizens and therefore less deserving of federal tax dollars. That is something I could absolutely see, and maybe with some individuals, the existence of the citizenship question and having census takers knock on doors might have some chilling effect. It might also discourage green card holders who might misunderstand the intent and purpose of the question. All of these are possible, I suppose. I just wonder what the hard evidence is to substantiate the amount of fear that I’ve seen kicked around in the media.
SCOTUS appears poised to disagree with you about the constitutionality of a citizenship question.
The law doesn’t really matter to a handful of Supreme Court justices – politics does.
Perhaps the census should also ask a series of questions about how many guns each household owns, and whether they are all legally owned, and how much ammunition is in the house. For, you know, reasons.
And they also appear poised to agree with him.
Personally, I have always felt that the Census Department grossly overreaches their Constitutional mandate, by collecting statistical data unrelated to the enumeration of the populace. I would much prefer them to do a simple count. (And, yes, by count I mean count and not estimates.)
However, that train has long left the station. If they can ask how many bathrooms are in my house, they can ask the citizenship of the residents of that house. It may or may not be a good idea to do so, but it is certainly legal.
(And, with respect to the non-response issue, that is, the idea that asking citizenship will reduce the response rate, the same is true of the so-called “long form”, the origin of the infamous bathrooms question alluded to above. It is well established that people who receive the long form are significantly less likely to respond than recipients of the standard form.)
If a Dem wins in 2028, s/he will probably have that option. In the meantime, back here at the thread topic, and your quaint opinion notwithstanding, “I don’t think there’s a constitutional issue with the citizenship question.”
I’ll note that your opinion of the law tends to vary based on what’s good for your political opinions. That’s less than quaint, that’s an unprincipled view of the rule of law.