SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Perfection]

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?

The US immigration system is fundamentally broken in such a way that those with legal reasons for being in the US may have a contradictory paper trail, answering any question regarding immigration status can be hazardous.

 

[rah]

So why introduce a question that will cause people to break the law and screw up the count when that's the purpose in the first place. ? Seems silly and really politically motivated.

 

[Perfection]

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.

when the system is rigged against you it isnt unethetical to break the rules. The US system is rigged to let people in and then not give them rights. It is perpetuated ao powerful people like Donald Trump can exploit them then threaten their residency in the US if they fight back.

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

In practice dodging the census taker isn't that hard. Basically you don't answer the door.

 

[Cutlass]

People can, and do choose "no" to the census anyway. I'm not particularly keen on prioritizing one criminal-motivated reason for refusal to others, and I don't see why SCOTUS should be either. Nobody has even posited reasoning beyond criminally-motivated here, either.

People choosing to not answer the Census is not an equal thing to people being terrorized and bullied into not answering the Census. This has litterally not one possible thing to do with any criminal action. So that motive is a strawman at best.

Such as citizens being under-represented.

Which, of course, can not happen. Your argument is that something which in absolute literal terms is absolutely impossible to happen is a legitimate excuse for raping away property and liberty from innocent people. When the reality is that the goal of an inaccurate Census is only to rape away property and liberty from innocent people.

Counting non-citizens for the purposes of voting representation (where you need to be a citizen to vote) is logically inconsistent. Therefore, it is useful to get an accurate count of actual citizens to properly align representation. The proportional false number risk is much higher when you don't count citizens at all.

Representation has never been about citizens. It hasn't even been about free people. Read the actual text of the Constitution.

 

[Perfection]

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

this is one of the cases where the law is used to exploit the vulnerable and punish them if they speak out it is not on the side of justice

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.

the people are here, they should be counted, the fact you don't think they should count is not a valid reason to dismiss them

 

[rah]

But it isn't controversial. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Perfection]

One might think this is a fun topic to debate, I do not. I post out of civic responsibility to speak for those for whom speaking out would leave them open to legal repercussions.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.

Yeah maybe it's because of the rash of highly-public illegal deportations of legal residents and the countless non-publicized incidents.

And Trump is planning his very own Kristallnacht so there's that.

 

[warpus]

The US immigration system is fundamentally broken in such a way that those with legal reasons for being in the US may have a contradictory paper trail, answering any question regarding immigration status can be hazardous.

So are you basically saying that it is not possible for the U.S. to ever ask its citizens who is a citizen and who isn't? Since I assume the "fundamental" issues can't be fixed since they're fundamental.

If there aren't any steps being taken to fix these problems then perhaps just go ahead and ask the question. Seems like you don't have a choice, really. And I say this as an immigrant who feels sympathy for those in legal limbo in the U.S.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This question has been asked in the past, so the conservatives have a precedent.

Like, no, that's not how any of this works.

 

[Perfection]

So are you basically saying that it is not possible for the U.S. to ever ask its citizens who is a citizen and who isn't?

The US government asks questions regarding citizenship status all the time, for legitimate reasons, I'm specifically referring to the US census proper, the constitutionally mandated count of all persons performed every 10 years. There are plenty of other ways for the US government to obtain this information as it needs it.

Since I assume the "fundamental" issues can't be fixed since they're fundamental.

I would not say that, the current US immigration system is primarily handled through federal legislation, and it could be overhauled legislatively to fix its myriad problems but it would be a major redesign and require sweeping landmark legislation. I thought that was worthy of the term "fundamental" but I'm not married to that adjective. Programs like DACA show that even in the absence of that incremental progress can be made. I hope for a time where we could ask that question without it being such an issue, of course, if such a time arises, it is probable that there would be no political will to ask the question.

If there aren't any steps being taken to fix these problems then perhaps just go ahead and ask the question. Seems like you don't have a choice, really. And I say this as an immigrant who feels sympathy for those in legal limbo in the U.S.

The reason the GOP wants this is essentially discriminatory power politics. The GOP's goals are to: 1. look tough on immigration 2. undermine the accuracy of the census in immigrant heavy areas 3. use the data collected as a legal justification for gerrymandering.

I see no reason to play along with any of those aims or pretend that they are made in good faith.

 

[warpus]

That was all very insightful, thank you

 

[onejayhawk]

No, I demand that those in government act responsibly and demonstrate to me how it plans on handling these issues. In my role as citizen I cannot provide oversight if I simply trust that the government is doing the right thing unless I can prove otherwise, I must demand accountability.

You ask a lot. You should be satisfied with the rationale for the census question, which is the specific issue at hand, but the rest of the government is very good at ass-covering..It's a really sucky system except for everything else that has been tried.

J

 

[Perfection]

You ask a lot. You should be satisfied with the rationale for the census question, which is the specific issue at hand, but the rest of the government is very good at ass-covering..It's a really sucky system except for everything else that has been tried.

J

It's nothing more than what I get asked at my job when I have to justify medical device design decisions and since government decisions like this effect many people in profound ways I do not think it is too much to ask.

 

[rah]

And let's not forget that the republicans have decreased funding for the upcoming census. Gee, I wonder why. And that's the big issue. It's not just one thing, it's systematic. I would say they're not fooling anybody but it seems they are.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's weird, because getting an accurate count of people for allotment of funds and count of citizens for allotment of representatives is theoretically a good idea. But then the gun registry argument repurposed comes out. It truly is an all-American trait not to trust the government. I'm actually proud.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's nothing more than what I get asked at my job when I have to justify medical device design decisions and since government decisions like this effect many people in profound ways I do not think it is too much to ask.

In that case, asked and answered. What is the fuss?

J

 

[Perfection]

In that case, asked and answered. What is the fuss?

J

I haven't seen the answers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So why introduce a question that will cause people to break the law and screw up the count when that's the purpose in the first place. ? Seems silly and really politically motivated.

If the count is being used to decide who gets representation and benefits of programs, counting people here illegally *is* screwing up the count for that purpose.

Asking this question allows better allocation of resources while still meeting the standards required of the census.

when the system is rigged against you it isnt unethetical to break the rules. The US system is rigged to let people in and then not give them rights. It is perpetuated ao powerful people like Donald Trump can exploit them then threaten their residency in the US if they fight back.

Anybody can claim "the system is rigged" and break the rules on those grounds. People here illegally were not "let in then not given rights". Only the most basic human rights apply, and that doesn't imply "giving" them anything.

People choosing to not answer the Census is not an equal thing to people being terrorized and bullied into not answering the Census. This has litterally not one possible thing to do with any criminal action. So that motive is a strawman at best.

Asking a basic record keeping question of relevance to resource distribution is not "terrorizing and bullying" any more than you're terrorizing and bullying me right now.

The assertion of strawman in this context is disingenuous...maybe straight up dishonest. The whole discussion is centered on the fear that people here illegally (a criminal action) will impact participation as a result of the question. It's a nonsense consideration, but criminal activity is at the core of it.

Which, of course, can not happen. Your argument is that something which in absolute literal terms is absolutely impossible to happen is a legitimate excuse for raping away property and liberty from innocent people.

"Raping away property"? Hyperbole much? How does this census question accomplish this? Walk us through the steps.

this is one of the cases where the law is used to exploit the vulnerable and punish them if they speak out it is not on the side of justice

"Vulnerable"?

the people are here, they should be counted, the fact you don't think they should count is not a valid reason to dismiss them

They are here illegally, and you're clearly asserting they're well aware they shouldn't be. For anybody else, answering this question doesn't seem to be an issue.

But it isn't controversial. Sorry, couldn't resist.

We already covered this and I admitted that 20% is reasonable as controversial. It shouldn't be controversial, but it is. Because reasons.

The US government asks questions regarding citizenship status all the time, for legitimate reasons, I'm specifically referring to the US census proper, the constitutionally mandated count of all persons performed every 10 years. There are plenty of other ways for the US government to obtain this information as it needs it.

If asking citizenship isn't an issue in those other contexts, why is it an issue in this particular context?

 

[onejayhawk]

I haven't seen the answers.

Sure you have. The data will be helpful is answer enough. It's an old question we would like to use again is also sufficient.

The real objection is that it would provide a baseline to scan for voter fraud. Politics being a game, Republicans cannot say that is why they want it, even though it is an excellent reason. Likewise, Democrats cannot give their real reason to oppose it.

J