Serious question -- what do Trump supporters think the citizenship question was supposed to DO?

Good answer.

 

Serious question: What does your race or ethnicity or how many shatters you have have to do with a constitutional census. It's very, very intrusive. It's just a head count.

 

-Associated costs and risks? Is all this fuss about the added printing costs of adding one question?....Really?

-If they had been asking how many green shirts people own since 1880, I would truly wonder why they want to know that data over all of those years. Of course such a nonsensical question has not been a part of the census for the last 140 or so years. What we ARE talking about is a question that HAS been on the census for the last 140 or so years, and it makes perfect sense to me why they have wanted to ascertain that data. That reason is as valid today as it was 100 years ago. Turning this into a discussion about green shirts is a flawed analogy because what is being discussed is an actual question that has been asked for over a hundred years.

 

It translates extremely well. And the Constitution is clear. And so is the Supreme Court and all courts.

As I said, this has been adjudicated by courts (including SCOUTS) since over a century ago: all references to "we the people", "persons",... and others refers to everybody. Not just to citizens. It's not even in dispute except by xenophobes, racists and ignorant people.

So once your argument has been debunked, you change the subject.

Let's be clear.. It's easy to come up with hundreds of "contrived" excuses for the question. But it doesn't look at this point like this time the Trump administration will have much luck unless they tell the truth to Courts. Which is that the purpose of the question is to skew the numbers against non-white representation..

My point in this discussion is that representation is based on all "persons" Not just on citizens. And you changing the subject is a concession.

Next!

 

For accuracy So when the bank sends out your monthly statement is it "A round about" or do you want the exact amount?

 

Accuracy alone is not a purpose; accuracy can be trivial. If the census asked you for the number of hairs, you'd probably want to know the purpose of the question instead of saying, "Welp, an exact number of hairs? Boy howdy, that sure is some accuracy!" There is a reason beyond accuracy for accuracy's sake in the case of the bank.

 

Sorry professor. When "We the people" was wtitten, "people" didn't even extend to women, slaves or indigenous "persons" representitively. Foreigners are still excluded.

 

I expect the data analysis side will be where most additional cost would come. It isn't going to be massive in the general scheme of things but why spend even a little more money if you can't give a definitive benefit for doing so.

The green shirt example was meant to be ridiculous. It was demonstrating that just because we could do something isn't a valid reason that we should do it.

On the wider question, you're ignoring the fact that this data is still being collected by the census bureau, just via the ACS rather than the long-form census it replaced. Adding it to the short-form census too is unlikely to add any additional information that they don't already have. So again, we're back to asking for a positive reason for doing so, not just the dismissive "Why not?".

 

"Persons" has never, at any point in time in the history of our country, excluded foreigners just for being foreigners, nor has it ever in our legal history referred only to citizens.

 

Why wouldn't you want to know ALL THE FACT?

 

It was designed to reduce Hispanic participation on the census.

I think many tRump supporters think the citizenship question can be used as citizen numbers instead of people numbers, but that isn't the case The census requires a people count. I've also seen people opposing the citizenship question make the same error. I don't see how it's possible to change the people count on the census to a citizen count without a Constitutional Amendment.

The idea of how to reduce Hispanic participation in the census was found on the hard drive of the Republican's king of gerrymandering, after his death. The concept is to reduce the Hispanic count. The census is used to appropriate the 435 House seats amongst the states. Population data is also used for appropriations, but the data is updated, so an error on the census wouldn't matter much over time. It isn't like a census will set appropriations for the next 10 years.

 

You don't make an argument. Am I supposed to just "guess" what it is? What have they been "doing wrong" since 1880?

Or is it that you want to know why I "hate" the creep who established the separation of children from their parents as a policy? If this is the case, I'm wondering why you don't hate him? Something wrong with you that you don't hate the guy who orders kids being tortured?

 

The definitive benefit would be getting a better and more accurate handle on how many noncitizens live in our country and how they are geographically dispersed. To pretend like anyone cares about the infinitesimal increase in cost is not being intellectually honest. This constroversy isnt about a few more million dollars in printing costs.

-I am all for the concept of using analogies to illustrate a point, however, it must be a valid analogy, which it was not.

-I have given a lengthy explanation of why we are asking it. Just because you keep pretending like anyone is saying "why not?" doesnt make it the argument that is being put forth. You are falsely putting words into my mouth and then proceeding to argue against those false words. Where I come from they call that a strawman argument.

 

If you expect me to believe you actually advocate adding a hair count to the census, I'm sorry, but I'm not falling for it.

 

What? Do want to not be taken serious? Again, why wouldn't you want to know ALL THE facts when taking a population census.. What are you afraid of?

 

The argument that I had already made and that you jumped in on was ( in short).....The question of citizenship has been on the census and thus ascertained in one form or another since 1880, with the exception of two (1960, and 2010). Since it was perfectly OK to ascertain that information since 1880, why is that information now all of a sudden out of bounds? I took that one step further and asked if you made a big deal out of Bill Clinton Admin also ascertaining that information?

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census-Bureaus-Birthplace-and-Citizenship-Questions-One-Table

 

That's easy.

People who are here illegally don't have the right to federal representation at the state level.

Federal funding, welfare, grants, and other tax dollars should not increase based on illegal aliens unlawfully present in any state.

 

Illegal aliens aren't supposed to be here, US tax dollars are not intended to support them. Why should districts with high illegal alien populations be allowed more funding due to their illegal alien influx than another district that is populated only by US citizens?

 

Let me 4th grader this stuff for you guys. "We the [persons] people" NOT SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION. Ruth Ginsberg's interpreting "people" as "persons" is in direct conflict with the centuries of imperical constitutional reality. Amendments extended representation to women, and slaves. No amendment provides representation for foreign nationals. "People" = citizens. If "persons" were equal to citizens we couldn't deport them.

 

No one wants all the facts in the population census. No one, for examples, honestly wants a hair count. We collect facts when they are useful, not just for funsies. Why can't you admit that? What are you afraid of?

 

It must feel horrible for you to get your ass whooped in a debate by somebody who hasn't read the constitution..

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons...."

​

 

The question asks who is a citizen, not who's an illegal alien. We've covered this already.

 

Until now Now we exclude them from our census data base

 

Anyone here legally has nothing to fear, nobody is afraid they won't answer the question. I expect such deflection from reality from you folk though...

 

"People" has never meant citizens alone. Ever. This far predates RBG. And your assumption that anyone who is not a citizen is "subject to deportion" shows that you are badly out of touch with reality on this issue.

 

And I expected the dodges to keep coming. Non-citizen =/= illegal, folks. Counting the number of citizens does not tell us the number of illegals.