Here’s CNN Politics on what the Supreme Court is doing behind closed doors these days: What the Supreme Court is doing behind closed doors | CNN Politics
So don’t add it unnecessarily, then?
Here’s a description of one study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/22/new-research-shows-just-how-badly-citizenship-question-would-hurt-census/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c24fe7d2b37
It discourages participation by people here legally, too, and even by citizens who have foreign nationals in their households. And that’s the reason for asking it.
If the Trump administration wanted to be really in-your-face, they could have added a question: “If you are an immigrant in the U.S., are you here legally?”
Thanks for the link, and definitely worth some thought. That’s pretty much what I was looking for.
FTR, I’ve been opposed to the question all along for a variety of reasons. It seems clear that the administration believes they benefit by inserting it into the questionnaire; I just didn’t know if there was any actual evidence that founded the concerns that have been discussed here and in the media.
Many immigrants come from countries where they learn to fear direct interaction with any governmental authority or bureaucracy. Just by listening to other Americans, they probably learn to fear the IRS pretty quickly, and they are constantly dealing with DHS, which can revoke their status for something as trivial as filling out a form incorrectly. It’s understandable that they would fear participating in a census, particularly one that is interested in their citizenship status.
It would be hard to hide that behind the “enforcing the VRA” fig leaf. My understanding is that they could do what you suggest, or do something really insane like just go back to knocking on doors and counting noses, as long as they follow the laws about making such changes. The census citizenship question was designed to discriminate — until incompetence doomed it
(No, they didn’t do that with this question either, but they manufactured a fig leaf to hide behind.)
What expectation is there that this question will result in useful information for the government?
If you were in the US illegally would you answer “yes” on a document that the government sent you asking if you were here illegally?
The question is only to intimidate and it can only hurt census results. Even if not a lot why put it there when it serves no useful purpose?
This change will have bad effects, and was defended in bad faith. All that is true.
What’s maybe worse is that the SCOTUS may sign off on a violation of law here. IANAL, of course, but it looks like Ross skirted the requirements for changes and manufactured a justification for doing so.
Allowing bad policy is one thing, because we don’t agree on what makes policy bad. That’s politics.
Letting rule of law issues slide because IOKIYAR and people were mean to Brett Kavanaugh? That’s frickin’ dangerous.
Actually the statistical analysis was to make the census more accurate but no longer a strict enumeration. Basically the statisticians wanted estimate the under count and use it to correct the totals, while the Republicans wanted to only use the raw counts effectively assume the under count was zero, using as their basis the claim that since 18th century legislators didn’t know modern statistical techniques using them is unconstitutional. Effectively the same reasoning that leads to the second amendment only applying to flintlocks.
In any case the Republicans have been consistent in their desire for an inaccurate census.
D’oh, I meant to write “more”, there, not “less”. Democrats wanted estimations because in the real world, they actually are more accurate. Republicans didn’t want them, because without them, it was easier to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that it was more accurate.
And the current Trump GOP has given extensive examples of why that’s a completely rational position to hold in the US if you’re a woman, non-white, non-Christian, non-American born, trans, gay, resident of a blue state, person who needs health care, unemployed, disabled …
The Constitution specifies an “Actual Enumeration”. So, by all means use estimates to improve the counting process, but the results have to be based on the actual numbers.
I do. I think requiring a response to that question may violate the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Sure. And they do.
But a perfect count of the population is impossible for a number of reasons. Not least of which because that number is changing minute by minute as people are born and die (a little math suggests a bit over five people per minute die in the US, on average and a bit over seven people are born per minute).
At some point you just have to say it’s close enough. The statistical estimates can help dial that in a little tighter.
I don’t think it does. It is not illegal to be in the United States and not be a citizen. The question does not ask if you crossed the border illegally or indeed if you are here illegally (which is only a civil infraction).
Those who support adding the question, what is it that this question will accomplish? And how will that be useful?
For one thing, the UN doesn’t override our Constitution, nor should it.
It’s not hard to imagine why a majority in Great Britain don’t want the EU controlling their laws.
So why should we listen to the UN about our census?
Congrats on an actual follow-up post. Let’s go for two in a row!
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? Why We Ask Each Question | American Community Survey | U.S. Census Bureau
Should they be out as well?