the moment you use words like "purpose" and "intent" you invite modern interpretation of ancient text. which is fine! i'm all for it! are you sure you're all for it?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

We don't worry about the Indians part, because it only applies to "Indians not taxed," and as of now, Indians pay federal income taxes. We don't worry about the 3/5's part because slavery is not legal.

When looking at the purposes part, why not look to see what the Framer's actually said? One of the best sources is the Federalist Papers, which uses the term "inhabitants." Or we can use the plain text, which uses the term "persons."

Did some Googling and it appears that the Census is regulated by Title 13. From the current (I believe) law:

§ 141. Population and other census information
(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the ‘‘decennial census date’’, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States.

Now, the question is how does one define "population". To me, it's a count of all persons, regardless of their status.

The question isn’t whether or not we should count every person. It’s whether or not there’s valid reason to specifically separate out the numbers of citizens from non citizens, since the main reason the census is conducted is for apportionment of representation in Congress.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think that a case could be made for asking about citizenship mainly because of the way the census is used to determine congressional apportionment. We shouldn't be apportioning representatives based on the number of illegal immigrants that manage to hide out in this or that state. That particular facet of how we order our representation for the Congress should be reserved for citizens only.

Also, I read somewhere today that the citizenship question (in one variation or another) has been a fixture on the census form since 1965, with the exception of the 2010 event. I haven't had time to verify that, because I've actually been busy this week (doing real general manager-type work that required more than me just saying "Yes, let's do that" or "Here, I'll sign it") but I'll probably get around to it tonight or tomorrow.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

That’s both true and untrue depending on how you look at it. The census process involves the mandatory census form used every 10 years, and multiple other surveys conducted yearly. The mandatory form hasn’t had the citizenship question since the 50s. However, citizenship questions have been asked on the other surveys every year except for 2010.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I thought you were all about upholding the constitution?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Why focus on illegal? What about us legal immigrants that work, pay taxes, etc? Do we not count for apportionment as contributing members of society?
And how sensitive is apportionment? So according to current stats, about 14% are immigrants. Half of those are naturalized, so they can put USA on the census. That leaves 7%. That supplies in half between legal vs illegal. So the illegal is 3.5%, but nearly a third of that is daca, who I cut some slack for and should have a pathway to citizenship.
So that leaves us with about six million legit illegals, spread out a round the country, albeit concentrated in certain areas. How much would losing six million really affect stuff? I don't know.

---

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements

First of all, the alleged new question is about citizen vs. non-citizen. There are a non-trival number of resident non-citizens with legal status. Though maybe the Federal government already knows that # (to some degree) by keeping a visa/green card count.

But back to your point. If the you think that non-citizens shouldn't be represented in Congress, then the correct way of going about it is to have Congress change the law that governs the Census Bureau. Because it's my understanding it would be illegal for the Census Bureau to remove non-citizens from the apportionment formula under current law.

If the intent is to just gather data to then release a study showing what difference in apportionment that might occur if the information was used, then fine. Do that. But be transparent about it.

Tell us that's what's going on. The Trump administration is not doing that.

I think I made the point somewhere in this thread that legal residents wouldn't have any fear of answering the question because they're here legally. My guess is they'd be figured in somehow in terms of apportionment, but maybe not. Because they're still not citizens.

I'm not sure what the historical record is as far as considering legal residents (in their various categories, including visa holders and permanent residents holding green cards), though, when it comes to how we organize our representation. It may be that we shouldn't be factoring them into what appears to me to be a matter for the citizenry of the United States only (apportionment). This may also be in line with the practices of other countries, depending on what news source you read.

DACA recipients? As far as I'm concerned, they should be quiet and stop loudly demanding anything, because right now they've becoming pretty annoying with the whole demanding thing. Let us sort out and decide what we should be doing about people who, no matter the circumstances of how they arrived, are still here illegally. Making them not-so-legit, at least in my eyes.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I think I am doing that. What I think we're doing here, especially among the pro-illegal-alien side, is parsing words in lawyer-like fashion, Counselor. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

No you are not. The constitution does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. There is no parsing. You are proposing a change to the law, not me. All free and taxed people are counted for apportionment.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

US District Judge agrees:



(Bloomberg) -- A federal judge blocked the Trump Administration’s plan to put a question about citizenship on the 2020 census, which will help determine U.S. elections, congressional seats and federal funding decisions for a decade.

The ruling comes after a two-week trial in Manhattan that the government sought more than a dozen times to derail. The Supreme Court may have the last word. It’s hearing an appeal related to the trial in February in hopes of handing down a decision before the Census Bureau has to finalize its questionnaire.
"Hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of people will go uncounted in the census if the citizenship question is included," U.S. District Judge Jesse Furmansaid in a 277-page opinion.

"In arriving at his decision as he did, Secretary Ross violated the law," Furman said, adding that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross -- whose department oversees the census -- "violated the public trust" in doing so with respect to the census.

The Administrative Procedures Act requires an agency to "consider all important aspects of a problem," study relevant evidence and come to a conclusion supported by it, comply with procedures and laws and explain the facts and reasons for the decision, Furman said. Ross’s decision "fell short on all these fronts," the judge said.

Furman, who held the trial without a jury, dealt with the first of several lawsuits filed by dozens of states and cities to block the question from the once-a-decade survey, where it hasn’t appeared since 1950. As the first, it will encourage the plaintiffs in the New York case as well as those in similar lawsuits in California and Maryland likely to go to trial, said Margo Anderson, a retired professor of history and urban studies at the University of Wisconsin, who opposes the question.

The ruling ignores both the law and the history of the census, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington who manages the group’s Institute for Constitutional Government. Federal law gives the commerce secretary the full authority to determine what questions will be used on the survey, he said, and a citizenship question was first asked in 1820 and is currently included on the annual American Community Survey, which goes to about one out of every 36 households.

“It will also prevent us from getting accurate census data on citizens and noncitizens from across the country -- since the ACS is limited in scope -- which is vital in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, distribution of federal funds and having an informed debate about immigration policy,” von Spakovsky said.

Damn. I posted this back in, like, late-March. And you geeks and nerds resurrect it? WTF is wrong with y'all? And why TF do you have such out-fucking-standing attention spans? HUH?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Kay is the only one who resurrected it, and since then your the only other person to reply... well before me...

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

I only replied because I was curious to see what numbnuts was crazy enough to dig up this rotten, stinking corpse of a post and bring it back to life like Frankenstein's mother-in-law. So, thus far; there are just us three numbnuts who've been stupid enough to post in it again...

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

We know, you don't want anyone talking about a judge saying that trump's secretary of commerce violated the law. You just want trump to violate the law and nobody to care.

Citizenship-related questions have been asked before.

Just dug through my ancestors' Census records and found these questions regarding citizenship in the 1920 Census:

"Year of immigration to the United States"

"Naturalized or alien"

"If naturalized, year of naturalization"

Uh, maybe because the judge's decision I posted yesterday was only just made. You really need to keep up.

And if it gets appealed to the Supreme Court, who knows, maybe the thread will be resurrected again. Oh, the horror...

Asked for and delivered. The referenced court is now in session hearing said appeal. Yes the horror of it all. Predicted newsflash, the lying within the Trump world with Wilbur's flimsy DOJ wanted it or whatever gets talked about during oral argument.