Citizenship Required on 2020 census

[GMDino]

(03-27-2018, 05:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: And most don't understand how the census works.  Information is to be "private" for 70 years.  But there is a fear that the current government will attempt to use the information to go after non-citizens.  Legal or not.

Let's also remember when "conservatives" felt the census was a bad thing primarily because they didn't want other groups having the information.

Now the roles have flipped.

Fear is a great/horrible tool.

And there is nothing new about that.

(03-27-2018, 07:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Acorn was collecting data and were corrupt on multiple levels.   Not quite the same as illegal aliens who are here openly breaking the law.

As I said: Fear is a great/horrible tool.

[Benton]

(03-27-2018, 06:59 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I get all of that, and comprehend the ramifications of not having enough budget for everyone trying to live in a given area.  However, what is being missed here, is why are they allowed to be here?  They're in violation of the law, make them leave.  

I'd like to see a list of Nations that allow illegal immigrants to not only live there, but to gather, organize, and hold protests in their host Nation.  The US has policies on how to immigrate, along with steps toward citizenship.  The presence of illegals is not only costing a lot extra in budget allocations, but affecting the distribution of representation in our legislature.  When they wrote about all "free persons", I really don't believe that they intended for immigration laws to be completely ignored.

So, I say absolutely ask the question "Are you a US Citizen" on the Census.  If places that want to declare themselves "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants, choose to do that, then let them foot the bill for keeping them around.  No need to pull from the Federal pot to care and maintain them.

To the bold, understood. And I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. But at the end of the day, the way our federal government works is that funds are doled out to local communities based on the number of people there. Those funds are used for a variety of things. And they're distributed largely because of the census. So the legal status is largely a side issue in regard to the fact that communities have to deal with the people there.

As far as other nations, they may not. That's why they're not us. If we're going to be more than the rest of the world, then we need to be more. If we're going to use other countries as a measuring stick, we deserve to be just as bad off as them.

[Griever]

(03-27-2018, 07:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We shouldn’t worry or care about representing illegals.  If they don’t report accurately then so be it.   If they report then call ICE and let them sort them out.

is brown your favorite color?

on topic

what was the reason they stopped asking it in the first place?

[mallorian69]

Why was the question taken off of the census forms in the first place? From what I can gather it was there every year until 1950.

[GMDino]

(03-28-2018, 08:59 AM)Griever Wrote: is brown your favorite color?

on topic

what was the reason they stopped asking it in the first place?

(03-28-2018, 09:18 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Why was the question taken off of the census forms in the first place? From what I can gather it was there every year until 1950.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

Quote:After a controversial decision by the Department of Commerce to add a question about U.S. citizenship to the 2020 census, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the move as nothing out of the ordinary.


The claim
"This is a question that's been included in every census since 1965," Sanders said Tuesday, "with the exception of 2010, when it was removed."

The short answer
This statement is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. A quick history of the decennial survey makes that clear.

The long answer
The census has been conducted every decade since 1790to get a national head count used most critically to decide the distribution of congressional representation. At first it was conducted by U.S. marshals, but later surveys were sent to most American households, with census workers helping those who didn't promptly return their surveys.

The last time a census form sent to most American households asked a question about U.S. citizenship was in 1950. That form asked where each person was born and in a follow-up question asked, "If foreign born — Is he naturalized?"

In 1960, there was no such question about citizenship, only about place of birth.

In 1960, the census asked respondents what country they were born in but not whether they were naturalized citizens.
Census.gov/Screenshot by NPR

Sanders mentioned the year 1965 on Tuesday, but the census only comes every 10 years, so it isn't clear what she was referring to, and the White House did not respond to a request for clarification.

In 1970, the Census Bureau began sending around two questionnaires: a short-form questionnaire to gather basic population information and a long form that asked detailed questions about everything from household income to plumbing. The short form went to most households in America. The long form was sent to a much smaller sample of households, 1 in 6. Most people didn't get it.

Starting in 1970, questions about citizenship were included in the long-form questionnaire but not the short form. For instance, in 2000, those who received the long form were asked, "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?"

The 2000 long-form survey, sent to a subset of Americans, asked about citizenship. The more widely distributed census short form that year did not.
Census.gov/Screenshot by NPR

The short form kept it simple: name, relationship, age, sex, Hispanic origin, race, marital status and whether the home is owned or rented.

The 2000 census short form asked about race but not citizenship, which the long form that year did ask about.

Census.gov/Screenshot by NPR

In 1996, the census added a new survey, the American Community Survey, conducted every year and sent to 3.5 million households. It asks many of the same questions as the census long-form surveys from 1970 to 2000, including the citizenship question.

Sanders said that in 2010 the citizenship question was removed. In fact, there was no long form that year — it had been replaced by the annual American Community Survey. The decennial census form asked just 10 questions.


The state of California has already sued to block the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The concern expressed by states with large undocumented immigrant populations is that asking about citizenship will scare people off, forms won't get filled out and the count won't be accurate, affecting federal funding and the number of congressional seats. (Though the Census Bureau is legally required to keep answers confidential, even from the FBI and other government entities.)

In a memo explaining his reasoning, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross dismissed concerns about incentive to participate.

Quote:"The Department of Commerce is not able to determine definitively how inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial census will impact responsiveness. However, even if there is some impact on responses, the value of more complete and accurate data derived from surveying the entire population outweighs such concerns. Completing and returning decennial census questionnaires is required by Federal law, those responses are protected by law, and inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census will provide more complete information for those who respond," Ross wrote.

But if the 2020 census form does ultimately ask about citizenship status, it will be the first time most American households have received a survey asking about citizenship since 1950.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2018, 08:59 AM)Griever Wrote: is brown your favorite color?

on topic

what was the reason they stopped asking it in the first place?

(03-28-2018, 09:18 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Why was the question taken off of the census forms in the first place? From what I can gather it was there every year until 1950.

(03-28-2018, 09:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

To actually answer the question posed and get to the "why" behind the NPR link, I will attempt an explanation.

The purpose of the census is to allocate resources. Specifically, the Constitution allocates representation in Congress, but it is also used to provide money to states for education, law enforcement, and a plethora of other federally funded programs. For this constitutional purpose, the representation, it is supposed to be a literal headcount of all people within the country. Citizenship is not relevant to this and does more harm to attempts to accurately count the people as it will negatively affect reporting rates.

The long form, and now the ACS, are tools used by demographers to learn more about the country. This is really where the monetary resource allocation is a big thing because it helps us understand growth patterns, etc. Since this is not constitutionally mandated, this happens every 5 years and goes out to a smaller portion. Then, statistical modelling is used to determines trends and so forth. This is actually a more accurate estimate of the people in the country than the actual census because it can take into account the flaws in the headcount system. Anyway, for the purposes of this the citizenship question is not going to cause as much as a negative impact because these social scientists can account for false/non reports in their modelling and the question can be useful in determining certain things.

Until we actually amend the Constitution to allow for modelling in the census information, we need to keep it as simple as possible. The citizenship question does more harm than good for actual census purposes. It is an important question that we need answered, but the mandated decennial census should not be the place for it. Everyone in the Census Bureau would say the same thing, but listening to the experts seems to be a bad thing these days.

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2018, 12:21 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, understood. And I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. But at the end of the day, the way our federal government works is that funds are doled out to local communities based on the number of people there. Those funds are used for a variety of things. And they're distributed largely because of the census. So the legal status is largely a side issue in regard to the fact that communities have to deal with the people there.

As far as other nations, they may not. That's why they're not us. If we're going to be more than the rest of the world, then we need to be more. If we're going to use other countries as a measuring stick, we deserve to be just as bad off as them.

It also accounts for representation, which is the reason behind the question. Including non-citizens in your numbers unfairly sways the number of representation each state has; therefore, disadvantaging states that have a smaller number of illegal immigrants.

Despite all the explanations provided, it still comes down to the feeble reason that I earlier asserted. If you make it a requirement folks won't do it. If they don't do it they are only hurting their economy.

"Obama's coming for you guns" has been replaced with "Trump's coming for your illegals."  

[Griever]

(03-28-2018, 10:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: "Obama's coming for you guns" has been replaced with "Trump's coming for your illegals."  

we surely can't replace that with trumps coming for your guns, because trumpets hate facts (since trump actually said he would take guns away)

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2018, 12:21 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, understood. And I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. But at the end of the day, the way our federal government works is that funds are doled out to local communities based on the number of people there. Those funds are used for a variety of things. And they're distributed largely because of the census. So the legal status is largely a side issue in regard to the fact that communities have to deal with the people there.

As far as other nations, they may not. That's why they're not us. If we're going to be more than the rest of the world, then we need to be more. If we're going to use other countries as a measuring stick, we deserve to be just as bad off as them.

What other nations do seems to be a rallying cry for either side depending on the issue.  I for one don't care what other countries do.  If I want to do something, then I see looking at how other countries do it, but the mere fact that other countries do something means nothing to me.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2018, 10:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It also accounts for representation, which is the reason behind the question. Including non-citizens in your numbers unfairly sways the number of representation each state has; therefore, disadvantaging states that have a smaller number of illegal immigrants.

Despite all the explanations provided, it still comes down to the feeble reason that I earlier asserted. If you make it a requirement folks won't do it. If they don't do it they are only hurting their economy.

"Obama's coming for you guns" has been replaced with "Trump's coming for your illegals."  

As of right now, the courts have said that all persons, citizens and non, must be counted in the census and included for apportionment. We include many segments of non-voting persons in these figures (children, cognitively disabled, prisoners, etc.), so we would need to reevaluate those as well if we were to discuss the way counting non-voting populations dis/advantages states.

[Benton]

(03-28-2018, 10:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It also accounts for representation, which is the reason behind the question. Including non-citizens in your numbers unfairly sways the number of representation each state has; therefore, disadvantaging states that have a smaller number of illegal immigrants.

Despite all the explanations provided, it still comes down to the feeble reason that I earlier asserted. If you make it a requirement folks won't do it. If they don't do it they are only hurting their economy.

"Obama's coming for you guns" has been replaced with "Trump's coming for your illegals."  

To the first bold, very fair point, which makes it a more complicated issue than just 'we've got a bunch of illegal residents, what do we do now.'

And to the second, agreed. Although I would say what I hear most often is "Trump is coming for your civil rights." Along the same line, but playing to a bigger overall fear.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2018, 04:25 PM)Benton Wrote: To the first bold, very fair point, which makes it a more complicated issue than just 'we've got a bunch of illegal residents, what do we do now.'

While I would agree that there is a lot of hype at play in that and is why it is getting a lot of media attention, one of the reasons the question was removed originally was to prevent underreporting. This has been a concern for several censuses going back, including during the Obama administration. So to brush off the concern over people not being counted out of fear of answering that question as just being anti-Trump hysteria is erroneous thinking.

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2018, 04:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I would agree that there is a lot of hype at play in that and is why it is getting a lot of media attention, one of the reasons the question was removed originally was to prevent underreporting. This has been a concern for several censuses going back, including during the Obama administration. So to brush off the concern over people not being counted out of fear of answering that question as just being anti-Trump hysteria is erroneous thinking.

This all goes back to my original assertion of why folks don't want it. People won't do it and in not doing so will hurt themselves. Seems like faulty logic. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2018, 04:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This all goes back to my original assertion of why folks don't want it. People won't do it and in not doing so will hurt themselves. Seems like faulty logic. 

It doesn't just hurt themselves, though. It hurts entire states when people underreport.

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2018, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't just hurt themselves, though. It hurts entire states when people underreport.

Sure does, 

[Belsnickel]

https://theconversation.com/democracy-is-in-danger-when-the-census-undercounts-vulnerable-populations-93027?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1522322535

[JustWinBaby]

(03-28-2018, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't just hurt themselves, though. It hurts entire states when people underreport.

Well, the counterargument is if facilitiating illegals hurts federal funding.....then perhaps you shouldn't facilitate illegals.

But that's just my perspective.

[6andcounting]

Less illegal immigrants will participate, but that's probably the point from Trump's perspective. Something tell's me illegal immigrants weren't filling this out regardless of one particular question so I don't know how much of an effect it would really have though.

[Belsnickel]

The point of the lawsuit is that the Constitution states "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, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Now, the three-fifths part has been amended out, but the rest remains valid. This, according to the Census Bureau's own website, means counting every resident, not legal resident. If they are going to make a change that is known going in will reduce the response rate, then that is not following the constitutional mandate.

You don't want to include residents not here illegally? Amend the Constitution, because right now the courts have ruled that all residents be counted based on what is in the document.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2018, 08:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The point of the lawsuit is that the Constitution states "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, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Now, the three-fifths part has been amended out, but the rest remains valid. This, according to the Census Bureau's own website, means counting every resident, not legal resident. If they are going to make a change that is known going in will reduce the response rate, then that is not following the constitutional mandate.

You don't want to include residents not here illegally? Amend the Constitution, because right now the courts have ruled that all residents be counted based on what is in the document.

All of this is true.  It does nothing to address why including the question prevents anyone from answering the census.  Anyone who chooses not to do so is making their own choice, no one is forcing them.