SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Asking someone if they are a citizen is not "controversial".
2. It'd be nice if gerrymandering could be stopped. I don't expect anything new from this exchange.
3. The racial jury selection sounds like it's one of those things that is probably happening but hard to prove
4. US could use some consistency in how it "separates church and state".
5. Apple can DIAF with their consistently dishonest practices.

 

[rah]

Asking someone if they are a citizen is not "controversial".

only if you don't care if certain minorities are under reported and all the power that is lost through the under reporting.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

only if you don't care if certain minorities are under reported and all the power that is lost through the under reporting.

That's seems to be opposition's argument, and it isn't coherent.

The vast majority of minorities in the US are citizens and would not be impacted by such a question one bit. Among non-citizens, many are here legally and would simply answer "no" without fanfare or consequence.

So which "minorities" might get "under reported" if they're asked a basic question such as "do you have citizenship in this country"?

 

[rah]

That's seems to be opposition's argument, and it isn't coherent.

So not exactly non controversial. You just don't agree so you conclude it isn't coherent.

Any family that has any non-citizen family members living with them. Listening to Trump spew his hatred for 5 minutes would fill them with enough fear to not respond. Not as insignificant as you would like to believe to ease your conscience. But whatever, you're entitled to believe what you want, but that doesn't make it any less controversial.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Any family that has any non-citizen family members living with them.

Why is it a problem to answer "no" for family members who are not citizens? Be specific. "Generic fear of Trump" isn't valid reasoning, it could be used as an excuse to not participate based on any question.

You just don't agree so you conclude it isn't coherent.

The assertion is that there would be some unfair outcome/consequences as a result of asking a simple factual question. There's no basis presented for the assertion. All we get is an estimate that "some people will be afraid to answer this question", arbitrarily when compared to other census questions.

 

[rah]

Why is it a problem to answer "no" for family members who are not citizens? Be specific. "Generic fear of Trump" isn't valid reasoning, it could be used as an excuse to not participate based on any question.

Of course you don't understand the fear since you have nothing to lose. That's the problem here.
But whether you understand or not is really immaterial. There are people that disagree with you and that make it controversial by definition.
There are many controversies where one side doesn't understand the objections from the other side.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Of course you don't understand the fear since you have nothing to lose. That's the problem here.
But whether you understand or not is really immaterial. There are people that disagree with you and that make it controversial by definition.
There are many controversies where one side doesn't understand the objections from the other side.

Articulate the actual problem. It shouldn't be this hard to do so.

Even if some cultists fear the end of the world, saying the sun will rise tomorrow is not controversial. If those "cultists" were instead scientists who had discovered a rogue planet with twice the Earth's mass on a collision course with us, we'd instead have good evidence to fear the end of the world.

I'm asking for that evidence regarding the census, such that it refutes my assertion that this isn't controversial. So far none has been presented.

It is also inaccurate to say Americans have nothing to lose. If that were true, there wouldn't be a question of under-representation...

 

[rah]

All it takes is the appearance of any disadvantage for it to be controversial. (do you deny)
Population count is critical for determining political power in the US. (do you deny)
If ANYTHING impacts that count, that power is impacted. If people don't respond the count may not be accurate. (do you deny)
It is my belief that some people will be afraid to respond and they will not be counted. IMO
You don't think so. IYO
Neither side has definitive proof to support their opinion.
I don't think I can be any clearer.
We have a controversy. The fact that two reasonably intelligent people are discussing it for the last few hours should tell you something.

 

[warpus]

Why is it important that people are counted properly in this context? What does that impact?

 

[rah]

Seats in congress is the biggest thing. Blue states are worried about losing seats due to an under count.
Levels of funding for certain projects are also impacted.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

All it takes is the appearance of any disadvantage for it to be controversial. (do you deny)

I deny both the assertion and that there's actually an "appearance of disadvantage".

You're still not being specific by the way.

Population count is critical for determining political power in the US. (do you deny)

I agree.

If ANYTHING impacts that count, that power is impacted. If people don't respond the count may not be accurate. (do you deny)

Anything impacting the count impacts power. This includes counting non-citizens as if they're citizens, which would be indicative of an inaccurate count.

It is my belief that some people will be afraid to respond and they will not be counted. IMO

What evidence makes you believe that? What evidence would it take to change your mind?

Neither side has definitive proof to support their opinion.

The assertion is that this question is somehow unfair. That assertion is not substantiated. The burden of proof is on demonstrating otherwise. Otherwise, there's no clear difference between this question and "how many people live in the house", or sex/hispanic origin/race.

When it comes to census taking for political power, whether or not someone is a citizen is arguably more important than their race or whether they're of "hispanic origin"...and any generic "disadvantaged" or "fear" complaint should in principle apply to those categories as well, given how the argument has been presented so far.

If it's "controversial", it has to have a basis. Otherwise it's on the level of a doomsday prediction or a flat-earth truther...and doubting either of those is not controversial.

Seats in congress is the biggest thing. Blue states are worried about losing seats due to an under count.

Sounds to me like "blue states" want people to count as citizens even if they're not citizens.

 

[rah]

Sounds to me like "blue states" want people to count as citizens even if they're not citizens.

No they want citizens to not fear responding and not be counted. You keep telling me that I have provided no proof that this would happen while conveniently providing nothing that would prove that it won't happen.

That's why it's a controversy. Until you provide definitive proof that that question won't intimidate anyone from responding, you're just expressing your opinion JUST like I am.

 

[warpus]

You guys don't know how many citizens you have unless you go around asking everyone if they're one or not?

I suppose I haven't really thought through how we keep track of our citizens.. but.. FWIW I don't find the question: "Are you a citizen or not?" to be controversial at all. That's not what "controversial" means. It would be controversial if it was asking people the size of their genitals for instance

 

[rah]

It's controversial only because democrats believe that the republicans are asking it to suppress the count of those likely to support the democrats.
In these days of partisan politics it's a valid concern. The republicans have used many strategies to the same end in many states.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No they want citizens to not fear responding and not be counted. You keep telling me that I have provided no proof that this would happen while conveniently providing nothing that would prove that it won't happen.

Prove the Earth not turning into a black hole tomorrow won't happen.

Why would citizens be afraid to answer a yes or no question regarding citizenship status? Use logic and demonstrate the thought process that allows such fear to the point of inaction to be a reasonable conclusion.

Right now you're basically asserting the world really is flat.

That's why it's a controversy. Until you provide definitive proof that that question won't intimidate anyone from responding, you're just expressing your opinion JUST like I am.

Held to the (non) standard you're presenting, conducting the census is impossible because literally every question on it can intimidate people from responding by the same "standards".

The burden of proof is on you. You're saying a question is bad, to the point of being worse than other questions. If you can't show why that is, you lose because you do not, in fact, have coherent reasoning for the assertion.

It's controversial only because democrats believe that the republicans are asking it to suppress the count of those likely to support the democrats.

Explain how asking whether someone is a citizen will "suppress the count" of "how many people are citizens".

 

[rah]

Why would citizens be afraid to answer a yes or no question regarding citizenship status? Use logic and demonstrate the thought process that allows such fear to the point of inaction to be a reasonable conclusion.

A citizens mother is not a citizen, and they are afraid that she will be deported if it is brought to the authorities attention. So she does not repsond and is not counted.
This is another attempt to suppress voting by the opposition.

If you can't see why millions of democrats feel this way, there's no way I'm going to convince you.

But one last time. When there are millions of people on each side of an issue, it's a controversy by definition. Everything else is just a diversion and ignoring the reality of the definition.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A citizens mother is not a citizen, and they are afraid that she will be deported if it is brought to the authorities attention. So she does not repsond and is not counted.

In this hypothetical she is not a citizen. If the census aims to count citizens, she should not be counted. Fear of deportation implies a crime in this context, and her avoiding the law is not "voter suppression". She's not a legal voter.

If you can't see why millions of democrats feel this way, there's no way I'm going to convince you.

But one last time. When there are millions of people on each side of an issue, it's a controversy by definition. Everything else is just a diversion and ignoring the reality of the definition.

Whether you have one flat Earther or millions doesn't change reality. Asking someone citizenship status is not voter suppression, unless you're asserting any census question is voter suppression.

 

[rah]

At one time the flat earth question was a controversy.

If the census aims to count citizens, she should not be counted.

But if the citizen doesn't respond because of fear of her mother being deported, than the citizen is not counted. You didn't read that correctly.

There are many households where not everyone living there is a citizen.

And for the record, the controversy over whether there is a god or not, is not supported by facts on either side, but that doesn't disqualify it as a controversy.
Beliefs are sufficient, no matter how silly they are.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But if the citizen doesn't respond because of fear of her mother being deported, than the citizen is not counted. You didn't read that correctly.

There are many households where not everyone living there is a citizen.

I don't see how this is an issue. Someone voluntarily holding themselves back while committing an illegal act is not voter suppression.

It's true there are many household where not everyone living there is a citizen. Most of those households do not fear deportation, however, because the non-citizen's presence is legal.

At one time the flat earth question was a controversy.

And yet it stopped being so due to evidence.

So far, it seems your assertion is that avoiding the census out of fear while committing a crime is voter suppression. I suppose that's as credible as requiring ID being voter suppression, as in not at all :/.

 

[rah]

Does God exist? Do you have proof of your belief? Is that not a controversy? (in case you missed my final edit)

And for the record the idea that requiring ID being considered voter suppression is quite controversial.