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

.

The problem is that if you intimidate people, illegals simply won't open the door. Then we won't have any way to know how many people are in the country. We have to know the population of the country, whether they are legal citizens or not. Everything from road services to fire departments require this information. It affects everyone if they underestimate the population.

 

You ideas rely on the assumption that adding a citizenship question to the short-form would give significantly more accurate information about illegal immigrants than all of the other sources about citizenship plus all the ones tat are actually about illegal immigrants. Do you really believe current estimates have anything close to a 25 million margin of error and this would magically reduce that?

I'm not opposed to more information. I'm questioning whether this would actually generate more viable information and I'm questioning (like many others, up to and including the Supreme Court) what the administration is expecting to get from it and how they intend to use that data.

 

I get a kick out of @yardmeat asking for opinions then arguing with them. He didn't really want opinions.

 

So someone is asking people if they're citizens or not already?

 

Yeah he did a great job of dragging himself all through this thread.

Not just a clever name then.

Irony.

 

So you think illegal aliens are going to announce themselves as illegal aliens, if asked?

Okay. And I have some swamp land to sell...

 

Illegals are foreign nationals. That's not really a conflation.

 

The same reason ANY census questions are asked. To gather information on citizenry and demographics.

 

And illegals are going to say they are illegal...

Doesn't anyone on the right think about the obvious?

 

You ALMOST slipped this one by. House seats have always been allocated using census figures, and it's unconstitutional to allocate representives to non citizens. Representation is contingent upon citizenship, and every constitutional amendment pertaining to represention states that plainly. Several bi-partisan congress passed those amendments, and individual states ratified them. Obama omitting the question in 2010 probably skewed the data, but representives weren't intentionally allocated to non citizens because that's illegal.

 

Sure, I get that.

The hard line response would be that illegal aliens should have no expectation of road services, fire and police protection, or anything else in the country they have illegally entered.

The very last thing they should be able to do is to have any effect at all on our federal electoral process. And those local municipalities who voluntarily choose to accommodate them should have to do so at their own expense, and without federal support or assistance.

 

Strike three. One more free pitch: source?

 

This is no different than when they were cheerleading Trump's plan to keep out Muslim immigrants by . . . just asking them if they are Muslim.

 

It is when we have millions of foreign nationals here that are LEGAL.

 

The source provided 3 seperate times. The allocation process hasn't changed and neither have the constitutional requirements. Non citizens are not allotted EC delegates or House seats. It's why non citizens are legally required to declare their status on the census, and why non citizens don't elect House reps. Do you have a source that indicates reps and delegates are assigned according to raw population data? I doubt it.

 

You haven't provided it at all. I'm asking for your source saying that non-citizens didn't count for House seats. So where is it? All you've done is claim that it just must be so.

 

As a matter of fact I do. The Census Bureau.

"Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the 50 states included in the apportionment population counts? back to top

Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the 50 states are to be included in the census and thus in the apportionment counts.

Are children under 18 years old included in the apportionment population counts since they cannot vote? back to top

Yes, being registered to vote or voting is not a requirement for inclusion in the apportionment counts."

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q11

 

I was thinking more about this part.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

You should get yourself one of those little constitution books and read it. Then you might have an idea what your are talking about. Seems odd that you want to argue the constitution, but can't quote your argument.
You could then find the answer in Article I

 

Yep.

 

They use the 10 year census for redistricting, but they have yearly counts on illegals.

 

Yes. The reports I've seen are very detailed.

 

So how does that prove your point? I take it the 14th isn't quite working for you, is it

 

Oh ya, your sources have been Phenomenal

 

You ever get the feeling it "ALL ABOUT THE POST COUNT". I cant imagine people getting a woody over how many posts they can fish out of peeps..

Now that a pretty sad way to get a jolly