The important thing is that if we expend the time and resources to gather data, we gather data that is less likely to be accurate. That’s important.
That’s a really good idea! And I’m sure Republicans will have no issues with that due to their aversion to doing anything that might make them look hypocritical.
I’m honestly not sure I get the whole furor over this question. The goal of the census is 2-fold: 1) count all the people in the country at that point in time; and 2) apportion Representatives to States.
For the purposes of goal #1 the question is moot, every breathing body should be counted. I get that the question may cause some who are in the country illegally not to answer the census at all and could cause the actual count to skew low. OTOH, I tend to agree with asahi as well - a large portion of people in the country illegally probably are not going to answer anyway. For those that do, what is to keep them from just checking “Yes” and sending the form in? It’s not like Uncle Sam is going to cross check census forms to some citizenship database. There are, after all, three forms where normally honest people will lie - tax forms, census forms and golf scorecards.
For goal #2 - It seems Constitutionally pretty simple to me, either exclude resident non-citizens from taxation (the 14th amendment specifically excludes from representative apportionment numbers “Indians not taxed”, I could see courts interpreting that as “people not taxed”) and don’t let them vote, or compel them to become part of the tax system and let them vote. Before anyone has a conniption, I don’t mean that people who have no reportable tax burden should be excluded from voting. So long as one is subject to the US tax codes they should have a right to cast their vote. The whole “taxation without representation” thing. Whether one adheres to the tax codes or is in the country illegally are issues covered under, and should be enforced under, different laws.
Others have noted that this likely decision bolsters the argument for Court-packing, because now you’re getting to the point where dubious Court decisions start to rig election results. And I am inclined to agree.
Look, I am fairly conservative on immigration policy and even I think this question is unwarranted; the constitution calls for the enumeration of people, not citizens, so the issue doesn’t really get much clearer than that.
Also, it’s rich to see Roberts trying to tie this decision to better enforcement of the VRA given his decision in Shelby County, and how Gorsuch/Kavanaugh are appealing to agency deference and international models when their entire shtick has always been to eschew those things. Seriously, when we all just accept that these guys are nothing other than Fox News talking heads in robes, then it’ll make it easier to just add more Justices and make them all irrelevant.
Here’s a strange question: what if…
(a) everybody who is undocumented answers “yes” to the question? What’s the worst that could happen? They end up deported? Why isn’t that happening already, then?
(b) a considerable number of citizens answer “no” to the question?
© people leave the question blank? I don’t think anybody is going to say, “Sorry, but this form is incomplete, so this person isn’t counted.”
Note that, under current law (Title 13, Section 221, United States Code), the penalties are fines of up to $100 for leaving a question blank and up to $500 for giving a false answer.
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.”
I feel the same way about your opinion of the law.
That could only end up hurting their state’s cause. If, for instance, Kansas winds up with a 95% rate of citizenry on the Census while California ends up with a 40% rate (due not only to immigration but also Californians willfully answering no even when yes,) then that can only bolster Kansas’ arguments for more funding or whatnot.
The problem is that if immigrants disproportionately avoid returning census forms, States with lots of immigrants will lose out on Congressional representation.
Except that this opinion is based on nothing more than the laughable “everyone does it!” nonsense embraced by partisans. Look back through my posting history and you’ll see tons of times where I have found that the law does not support what is good for my politics. I believe in the threads about Bears Ears and tax cuts you stated something to the effect that you support whatever policies are good for you personally, and don’t really care about the process. I can state unequivocally that I reject your “ends justify the means” approach to the law.
What if additional questions on the census were planned by a hypothetical Democratic government to be:
- How many firearms are located in the premises?
- How is each firearm on the premises secured?
Now, sure, they say on the surface that this is to collect better information for firearm statistics, but really it’s designed to reduce response rates among gun-owners (likely to vote R).
Now you’ve tried a very lame bait and switch. I generally support policies that are good for me personally, but that tells us nothing about my view of “the law”. There was no serious legal / constitutional issue with shrinking Bears Ears or cutting my taxes. Do you have any actual examples where my “opinion of the law tends to vary based on what’s good for [my] political opinions”?
Sure, but since this is about you personally I’ll post them in the Pit thread and we can have a discussion of it over there. Sound good?
I don’t think you’d see anything like the tizzy the Left is in over this citizenship question. That question might actually be against the law though:
You can post whatever you like over there. I prefer to have discussions in places where people are expected to behave somewhat less like juveniles, so I won’t be joining you there.
I’m happy to keep it civil, but since the topic is you personally, in my opinion hijacking this thread is inappropriate, and I don’t see that any other forum is really in the sweet spot of discussions of your principles and politics. If you don’t like the way the discussion unfolds, you can always just stop showing up.
Perhaps so. I’d like to see their reasoning because this one seems pretty easy.
A census is a constitutional imperative. I do not think it is wrong to say that an “accurate” census is implied by that. A census would not pass constitutional muster if they just decided to ball park a guess over some drinks at the Census Bureau.
So, if an accurate census is what the constitution demands than any question that needs to be adjudicated should be answered based on the best evidence available for which choice provides for a more accurate census.
If you are fine with SCOTUS answering that question to make the census less accurate then really anything goes and the census can be made into a farce because why not?
Prove it.
I think the evidence that it will make the census “less accurate” is somewhat dubious, but anyways, here is what the Census Department itself says about collecting additional statistical information:
One could make the argument that collecting additional statistical information above and beyond a simple count might make the count less accurate, but “the law” doesn’t appear to care. Despite what you think is “implied”, there don’t appear to be any serious constitutional issues with asking about citizenship (or race or gender or the other myriad things that get asked on a census questionnaire)
Justice Gorsuch, IIRC, made the point - if Congress doesn’t want the question, they can pass a law and keep it off the census. Which accords with the general view that Congress makes laws, the Supreme Court doesn’t. Or shouldn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
Wonder if there is any math on just how this would change the EC/House makeup. The estimate was that 6 million or more people might go un-counted, which is less than two percent of the current U.S. population. Taking into account that this would also adversely affect Texas, Florida and Arizona, and…perhaps it might amount to nothing more than a switchover of, say, five House seats and EVs going from blue to red?