SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Perfection]

In the paragraph above you're talking about how non-criminal charges, now you're admitting something illegal is going on after all, or at least the fear of repercussions due to something illegal being done is the only demonstrable fear.

One not need to have done something illegal to fear legal repercussion. For instance a refugee may fear deportation despite having a legal reason for being here.

I see zero reason to respect that fear, or differentiate it from fear of other illegal activity influencing census participation.

You seem to be changing your story here, it seems now you have stopped arguing that it the proposed rule change would not affect results and instead are arguing that those who might be affected somehow deserve to not be counted? Those are two quite different arguments, please clarify your stance.

If an accurate count for voting representation is important to you, why are you advocating against an accurate count for voting representation? This is sort of like allowing the pacemaker to make errors at a 10% margin because you don't have perfect assurance to avoid a separate 0.1% error margin.

I fail to see how any of my positions advocate against an accurate count. I am committed to an accurate count and I believe all my positions are consistent with that belief.

 

[rah]

There must be some lower bound. If only 3 people in the world believe something, it's not a controversy, right? How many is sufficient? 1%? 10%?

I'm not really arguing against you anymore so much as I'm curious to clarify this. I realized in our exchange that I don't know what the accepted usage is for controversy, or whether it's as consistent as say the usage of "car tire".

In actuality, at first I didn't see any issue with the question myself at first. But then I read about all the editorials about it in the paper and on the news and I decided that there was enough to warrant a discussion on it and was convinced that it could be a serious issue.
As to what the lower limit should be. Iffy. I figure 1% might be about right since there are usually 1% crazo's out there on almost any issue, so while it still would be a controversy for them I think for the sake of argument I'd go along and say no. But any much more over that and I have to lean towards legit. 5% for sure.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

One not need to have done something illegal to fear legal repercussion. For instance a refugee may fear deportation despite having a legal reason for being here.

I doubt this combination of factors is common.

You seem to be changing your story here, it seems now you have stopped arguing that it the proposed rule change would not affect results and instead are arguing that those who might be affected somehow deserve to not be counted? Those are two quite different arguments, please clarify your stance.

Let me break my position down more clearly:

1. I do not anticipate the impact to be very large.
2. I also do not see a reason to care whether someone skipping the census out of fear they'll be caught in illegal activities chooses to do that.
3. I do see a reason to specifically count citizens, because citizens vote. Representation of voting citizens should reflect the voters.

I fail to see how any of my positions advocate against an accurate count. I am committed to an accurate count and I believe all my positions are consistent with that belief.

Counting how many citizens you have is easier when you count how many citizens you have, rather than counting total bodies and guessing.

As to what the lower limit should be. Iffy. I figure 1% might be about right since there are usually 1% crazo's out there on almost any issue, so while it still would be a controversy for them I think for the sake of argument I'd go along and say no. But any much more over that and I have to lean towards legit. 5% for sure.

Fair enough. I'm not sure where I'd put it.

Editorials and "the news" can shove it. They're long since abandoned their purported function.

 

[rah]

But if a citizen doesn't respond out of fear of their mother being deported, a citizen is not counted. That citizen deserves to be counted.

And for the record, regardless of who many are actually counted, some estimating is included in the algorithms.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hogwallop Jr everywhere!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But if a citizen doesn't respond out of fear of their mother being deported, a citizen is not counted. That citizen deserves to be counted.

And for the record, regardless of who many are actually counted, some estimating is included in the algorithms.

This is a very tiny % of total citizens, which are not counted as citizens nearly as accurately w/o asking them.

 

[warpus]

It's simple the census shouldn't be trying to figure out how citizens are in a household, it should be trying to figure out how many people are in a household.

What if the state is trying to figure out how many citizens live in the state though? Seems like useful information for a governing body to have, and also seems like if they want to figure that out, they have to ask this question.

 

[Perfection]

I doubt this combination of factors is common.

I am not going into specifics about how I know this but I can assure fear of deportation is common among refugees who have legitimate reasons for being here.

Let me break my position down more clearly:

1. I do not anticipate the impact to be very large.
2. I also do not see a reason to care whether someone skipping the census out of fear they'll be caught in illegal activities chooses to do that.
3. I do see a reason to specifically count citizens, because citizens vote. Representation of voting citizens should reflect the voters.

My thoughts are as follows a lot of it is a restatement of previous posts but I feel it is good to state things explicitly.
1. I believe it is reasonable to think many may be affected as its a sensitive question being asked to a vulnerable population, and I believe it is the government's responsibility to satisfactorily address those fears prior to implementing the rule change as the effects of a miscount can be severe.
2. We count prisoners in the census, having committed crimes ought not exclude one from the census. We must strive to have the best count possible not to lay judgement on who deserves to be counted or not. In addition I think the attitude where the illegality of immigration violations is compared to crimes where people are actually victimized to be completely unfair. Illegal immigrants should not be treated as if they were a threat to civil society any more than you or I.
3. The constitution states that it is persons who should be counted not citizens. Those without voting rights such as children and permanent residents are still community members who deserve government representation, but we view them as not being capable of responsibly choosing representatives and thus we must rely on those with voting rights to vote for representatives that will work on their behalf.

Counting how many citizens you have is easier when you count how many citizens you have, rather than counting total bodies and guessing.

As I specifically stated in the very first post you replied to the census is mandated by article 1 of the us constitution to count all persons not mere citizens.

 

[Perfection]

What if the state is trying to figure out how many citizens live in the state though? Seems like useful information for a governing body to have, and also seems like if they want to figure that out, they have to ask this question.

I agree that this is useful info but as this is not a legally neccessary number to assign representation, so the government doesn't need to know that to single individual granularity. Surveying methods using representative sampling should suffice.

 

[Estebonrober]

On citizenship question.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/01/citizenship-question-census/

I come down somewhere in between on this, the problem being do I have faith in the government not to use the information malignantly. The obvious answer to that question in the current environment on both sides is no. So therefore I do not believe we should change anything on the census in the current environment. In a better world with better people it would be ideal to know specifically.

Democrats fear that including a citizenship question will result in undercounts. Republicans and the Trump administration say the question will give detailed information on the citizenship of the voting age population and help the Justice Department better enforce the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory voting practices.

Basically both sides want to manipulate seat counts. Considering other Republican practices on voter suppression I cannot support this action.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am not going into specifics about how I know this but I can assure fear of deportation is common among refugees who have legitimate reasons for being here.

If their presence is legitimate, what basis is there for deportation? Those seem to be conflicting points, logically speaking.

1. I don't see how a yes/no question that is a matter of public record (or should be anyway) is "sensitive".
2. Can prisoners not refuse to participate in the census? That's a key difference here; you're worried about people *voluntarily* skipping their own representation in the census, over something illegal. Also, not all prisoners committed crimes that have victims. Illegal immigrants are a threat to civil society, taken in aggregate.
3. The constitution does not compel people to participate in the census, however. Children and non-citizen residents lack the capacity and skin-in-the-game to be reasonably treated for voting representation, which is why they don't vote. They should be counter per the constitution, but it's not clear why they should influence voting representation, which is intended to to pick people that represent the people who actually voted for them.

As I specifically stated in the very first post you replied to the census is mandated by article 1 of the us constitution to count all persons not mere citizens.

The census is used for more than just distributing representation. For the purposes of this, however, you want a count of citizens specifically.

Basically both sides want to manipulate seat counts. Considering other Republican practices on voter suppression I cannot support this action.

When requiring photo ID is one of those things that are being counted as "voter suppression" it's hard to take such assertions seriously, even if some actual suppression happens too.

 

[rah]

I am more inclined to go along with your ID argument because in my belief those that claim it's too difficult to get an ID are usually the same people that find it too difficult to vote and wouldn't be voting anyway but it does probably cause some minimal suppression.
But when you're counting for representation in Congress or funding, I'm more inclined to want the best count possible and believe the citizenship question will cause a problem.

 

[warpus]

Yeah I still don't really understand how asking this question could be in any way controversial. They're not asking you if you murdered somebody or if you smoke weed or what your sexual orientation is. It's the least controversial type of question I can almost imagine, really.

Are there case studies we can look at that show that this is a bad idea?

 

[rah]

Not direct studies, all you have is the reluctance of immigrants legal or illegal not wanting to interact with proper authorities on a wide variety of things.
Especially with all the trump rhetoric. They should be afraid. Trump has tried to come up with reasons to deport legal immigrants.

Their fear is real. Whether it's justified is something else. But perception becomes reality.

 

[Perfection]

If their presence is legitimate, what basis is there for deportation? Those seem to be conflicting points, logically speaking.

It is pretty dang reasonable to not trust the government to always do the right thing.

1. I don't see how a yes/no question that is a matter of public record (or should be anyway) is "sensitive".
2. Can prisoners not refuse to participate in the census? That's a key difference here; you're worried about people *voluntarily* skipping their own representation in the census, over something illegal. Also, not all prisoners committed crimes that have victims. Illegal immigrants are a threat to civil society, taken in aggregate.
3. The constitution does not compel people to participate in the census, however. Children and non-citizen residents lack the capacity and skin-in-the-game to be reasonably treated for voting representation, which is why they don't vote. They should be counter per the constitution, but it's not clear why they should influence voting representation, which is intended to to pick people that represent the people who actually voted for them.

1. There are millions of people living in America who are presently hiding their immigration status. That is a brute fact. That is not a good thing but it is the present state of affairs. If you want an accurate count of who lives where you need to understand this.
2. Participation in the census is mandatory, neither you, nor an illegal immigrant, nor a prisoner has a choice in the matter. (Legally that is, in practice you can dodge it of course, which is the behavior were concerned with)
3. The constitution compels the government to produce a count of all persons every 10 years. In order to fulfill that directive the government mandates you participate in the census and refusal to do so carries criminal penalties (though they aren't enforced) non-voting residents certainly have skin-in-the-game as they too are affected by legislation. That is why their counts are used in determining representatives, they are just viewed as incapable of expressing their needs through democratic means.

The census is used for more than just distributing representation. For the purposes of this, however, you want a count of citizens specifically.

the census is a count of all persons in order to determine representation, it states so specifically in the constution. You may plead otherwise but this how it is and has been since the adoption of the us consitution (with some caveats for Indians and slaves that aren't relevant to the discussion). The demographic data is useful but that is not its primary purpose, the census bureau can and does do representative sample surveys to get more specific demographic data not related to the censuses primary constitutional purpose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. There are millions of people living in America who are presently hiding their immigration status. That is a brute fact. That is not a good thing but it is the present state of affairs. If you want an accurate count of who lives where you need to understand this.
2. Participation in the census is mandatory, neither you, nor an illegal immigrant, nor a prisoner has a choice in the matter. (Legally that is, in practice you can dodge it of course, which is the behavior were concerned with)

So you're actually asserting that people will illegally skip the census, out of fear.

Color me unimpressed that people willing to do this could possibly be "under-represented" lol.

3. The constitution compels the government to produce a count of all persons every 10 years. In order to fulfill that directive the government mandates you participate in the census and refusal to do so carries criminal penalties (though they aren't enforced) non-voting residents certainly have skin-in-the-game as they too are affected by legislation. That is why their counts are used in determining representatives, they are just viewed as incapable of expressing their needs through democratic means.

If participation is compulsory put the citizenship question on it and make people participate. What they're afraid of doesn't matter.

 

[rah]

So you're actually asserting that people will illegally skip the census, out of fear

Yes, I've said that in almost every one of my posts. How can you miss it. It may be fear for themselves or someone else in the household.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, I've said that in almost every one of my posts. How can you miss it. It may be fear for themselves or someone else in the household.

I didn't realize it was compulsory, so I was under the impression that the argument was that people would opt out as a choice.

But apparently it isn't a choice, so they can screw off with that.

 

[rah]

Is it really a choice when fear of deportation of a loved one is involved? Real easy for you to comply when there is no risk.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Is it really a choice when fear of deportation of a loved one is involved? Real easy for you to comply when there is no risk.

Yes, doing illegal things has risk, there are consequences for doing them.

But if this is really such an issue I expect that we'd just get lies on the census anyway. Illegally present family member probably doesn't exist for the purposes of answering the census for such a scenario. I also expect actual punishment if caught, but almost nobody would be in practice of sheer numbers.