Trump mulls executive order to add citizenship question to census: report

[CLAX1911]

View attachment 67259370

That question was not a straw man. if you can show me how I miss representing your argument with my question...lol... Then you can say it's a straw man.

 

[JasperL]

Making crap up? See: More Than 200 Dead People Shown to Have Voted in NY County Elections: Report

"More than 6,000 dead people are registered to vote in Nassau County and records show about 270 of them actually voted after their deaths, according to a Newsday analysis of voter registration and federal death records.

The paper reports dead registered voters in Nassau County account for nearly 25 percent of the 26,500 dead people registered to vote statewide. "

JWK

It's obvious to me every single "dead" vote went for a Republican, so dead people voting is a scheme by right wingers to maintain power.

FWIW, about 20 million people live in NYS and the link showed about 10 "dead" people voted per election, and there's no evidence those 10 weren't just clerical errors - a voter or worker signing someone in on the wrong line or the equivalent. And obviously we have no clue for whom those people voted, although I'm certain all those votes went for the GOP, because I've declared it so and there's as much evidence for that as the dead voters actually voted for their dead dogs.

 

[johnwk]

So what's wrong with asking if their citizens or not?

Let us not forget that Obama asked this very question in the 2015 "THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY"! Question "8" asked of "person one" reads "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

JWK

 

[JasperL]

So what's wrong with asking if their citizens or not?

If you want to know why the question got shot down by the USSC, read the majority opinion.

In general, people oppose the question because of what you quoted and ignored, which is that the POINT of including it is to undercount non-citizens. That's what the people at Census determined, and their study has been cited on these threads multiple times.

 

[JasperL]

That question was not a straw man. if you can show me how I miss representing your argument with my question...lol... Then you can say it's a straw man.

We were talking about whether representation is allocated based on people versus citizens. It's the former. You ignored that point to bring up a different point about what's the problem with the question THAT IS NOT NEEDED FOR ALLOCATING REPRESENTATION. In fact, the problem is no one in the executive can figure out a legitimate reason for the question and it's because the actual reason is an undercount, but they cannot admit that.

 

[j brown's body]

Let us not forget that Obama asked this very question in the 2015 "THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY"! Question "8" asked of "person one" reads "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

JWK

So Trump should do an American Community Survey.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you want to know why the question got shot down by the USSC, read the majority opinion.

In general, people oppose the question because of what you quoted and ignored, which is that the POINT of including it is to undercount non-citizens. That's what the people at Census determined, and their study has been cited on these threads multiple times.

That's not what people enter discussions for

 

[CLAX1911]

We were talking about whether representation is allocated based on people versus citizens. It's the former. You ignored that point to bring up a different point about what's the problem with the question THAT IS NOT NEEDED FOR ALLOCATING REPRESENTATION. In fact, the problem is no one in the executive can figure out a legitimate reason for the question and it's because the actual reason is an undercount, but they cannot admit that.

It's the only people that can vote are citizens then it would seem obvious.

Unless you're like one of those people in the pro-slavery States who wanted clout based on your human chattel.

 

[JasperL]

Let us not forget that Obama asked this very question in the 2015 "THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY"! Question "8" asked of "person one" reads "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

JWK

Yes, they ask it in rolling, annual ACS surveys, and have since about 2005. That's why the question wasn't on the 2010 census, because the citizenship information is obtained from ACS.

So in 2010 and in 2020, the census is just the 'short form' because the Census sends out about 2.5 million ACS survey's annually. That took the place of the long form, and it's better because now the focus of the main "Census" is a count of people, versus a wealth of additional information that's obtained from ACS.

Again, there's no reason to include citizenship on the main census because if we get a good count of PEOPLE with the Census, sampling by ACS will give us very accurate and regularly updated numbers of citizens and non-citizens in a given area. That's why Ross couldn't find ANYONE in the executive branch who needed the citizenship question on census. It's better on ACS, because the count is updated during the next decade 2-4 times depending on the area.

The point of citizenship on Census versus ACS is the UNDERCOUNT. It's really that simple. Once we accept that, all the rest of this BS makes perfect sense.

 

[JasperL]

It's the only people that can vote are citizens then it would seem obvious.

Unless you're like one of those people in the pro-slavery States who wanted clout based on your human chattel.

I don't care how you care to phrase it, the Constitution requires a count of people, including non-citizens, and the Constitution requires that we use the count of people, including non-citizens, from the 10 year census to allocate representation.

It's just a fact. Read the document if you're confused on this point.

 

[JasperL]

Non-citizens shouldn't have representation this is not their country.

Take it up with the founders and whoever drafted and approved the 14A. Doesn't matter what you think "should" be the case, the constitution clearly says non-citizens do HAVE representation. Sorry for your loss.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't care how you care to phrase it, the Constitution requires a count of people, including non-citizens, and the Constitution requires that we use the count of people, including non-citizens, from the 10 year census to allocate representation.

It's just a fact. Read the document if you're confused on this point.

So what's wrong with asking them if their citizens or not.

Why do you run away from that question?

 

[JasperL]

That's not what people enter discussions for

I wasn't sure what you meant by the question. I don't see the point of rehashing the SC decision, given it's been discussed already and in the books, and you asked why (I assumed) I don't want the question on the main census and I answered in my own words. If you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine. But I answered your question as best I could. I've now answered it twice in my own words and you've ignored that answer twice.....

 

[CLAX1911]

Take it up with the founders and whoever drafted and approved the 14A. Doesn't matter what you think "should" be the case, the constitution clearly says non-citizens do HAVE representation. Sorry for your loss.

pretty sure the founding fathers knew the difference between citizens and non-citizens

 

[CLAX1911]

I wasn't sure what you meant by the question. I don't see the point of rehashing the SC decision, given it's been discussed already and in the books, and you asked why (I assumed) I don't want the question on the main census and I answered in my own words. If you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine. But I answered your question as best I could. I've now answered it twice in my own words and you've ignored that answer twice.....

It's plain English what's wrong with you?

 

[JasperL]

So what's wrong with asking them if their citizens or not.

Why do you run away from that question?

I can reply but apparently I can't make you read them. I'll quote myself, in replies directly to YOU:

"In general, people oppose the question because of what you quoted and ignored, which is that the POINT of including it is to undercount non-citizens. That's what the people at Census determined, and their study has been cited on these threads multiple times.

"We were talking about whether representation is allocated based on people versus citizens. It's the former. You ignored that point to bring up a different point about what's the problem with the question THAT IS NOT NEEDED FOR ALLOCATING REPRESENTATION. In fact, the problem is no one in the executive can figure out a legitimate reason for the question and it's because the actual reason is an undercount, but they cannot admit that."

"We pretty much know the intent of the question is to undercount non-citizens, but no one can admit to this because it's corrupt and unconstitutional if that's the intended result, because the constitution requires a full count of people, period."

This was a comment by someone else to YOU, quoting from a story:

WASHINGTON — Thomas B. Hofeller achieved near-mythic status in the Republican Party as the Michelangelo of gerrymandering, the architect of partisan political maps that cemented the party’s dominance across the country. But after he died last summer, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father’s home that revealed something else: Mr. Hofeller had played a crucial role in the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Files on those drives showed that he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.

If that's not clear enough, I can't help. I've done all I can...

 

[JasperL]

pretty sure the founding fathers knew the difference between citizens and non-citizens

Of course they did, and they didn't require a count of citizens but of PEOPLE. If they meant "citizens" were to be used as the count on which to allocate representation, they'd have used the term "citizens" but they didn't. They used the term "people." And by using the term "people" they GAVE representation to non-citizens.

So whether you think they "should" have representation isn't relevant, to me at least. They HAVE it, thanks to the founders.

 

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Let us not forget that Obama asked this very question in the 2015 "THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY"! Question "8" asked of "person one" reads "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

JWK

So Trump should do an American Community Survey.

No. President Trump needs to tell Justice Obamacare Roberts, the question is being asked for the same reasons Obama asked it!

:roll:

JWK

 

[CLAX1911]

I can reply but apparently I can't make you read them. I'll quote myself, in replies directly to YOU:

you haven't answered the question I'm asking you I'm not asking you to tell me what other people think for you.

If you're just a zombie programmed to parrot out what someone told you to think there is no value in discussing anything with you. I can go get your NPC recording from any other source.

So I'm going to continue to delete and ignore bull**** that I didn't ask for.

 

[CLAX1911]

Of course they did, and they didn't require a count of citizens but of PEOPLE. If they meant "citizens" were to be used as the count on which to allocate representation, they'd have used the term "citizens" but they didn't. They used the term "people." And by using the term "people" they GAVE representation to non-citizens.

So whether you think they "should" have representation isn't relevant, to me at least. They HAVE it, thanks to the founders.

Well in the preamble they use the phrase "We the People.." do you think that that doesn't mean certain people?

 

[pamak]

Well in the preamble they use the phrase "We the People.." do you think that that doesn't mean certain people?

Dude!

Get a course about your Constitution and its origins. Even though I am a foreigner, I have learned more about it by reading my kid's textbooks.

The Founding Fathers clearly did not count JUST citizens for the apportionment of representatives. This is pretty obvious by the fact that the original Constitution even counted slaves (non-citizens) who had no even basic legal rights as three fifths of a person for determining the apportionment of representatives. There have been archives with debates from the Constitutional Convention.

Digital History

Annotation:

The Constitution was a document based upon compromise: between larger and smaller states, between proponents of a strong central government and those who favored strong state governments, and, above all, between northern and southern states. Of all the compromises on which the Constitution rested, perhaps the most controversial was the Three-Fifths Compromise, an agreement to count three-fifths of a state's slaves in apportioning Representatives, Presidential electors, and direct taxes.

The three-fifths figure was the outgrowth of a debate that had taken place within the Continental Congress in 1783. The Articles of Confederation had apportioned taxes not according to population but according to land values. The states consistently undervalued their land in order to reduce their tax burden. To rectify this situation, a special committee recommended apportioning taxes by population. The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio. All but two states--New Hampshire and Rhode Island--approved this recommendation. But because the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, the proposal was defeated. When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it adopted Madison's earlier suggestion.

 

[JasperL]

you haven't answered the question I'm asking you I'm not asking you to tell me what other people think for you.

If you're just a zombie programmed to parrot out what someone told you to think there is no value in discussing anything with you. I can go get your NPC recording from any other source.

So I'm going to continue to delete and ignore bull**** that I didn't ask for.

That's fine. I don't apologize for citing evidence for the basis of my objection to including citizenship questions on the main census. I oppose including the question for 2 reasons:

1) the EVIDENCE shows that it will create an undercount, and
2) the EVIDENCE shows that is the entire point, the reason, that the Trump administration wants to include the question on main census - to undercount non-citizens.

So there's no legitimate reason to include the question, and good reasons NOT to include it unless you want an inaccurate, more difficult, more costly count of the people.

If that's not good enough for you, fine, we'll end it here.

 

[JasperL]

Well in the preamble they use the phrase "We the People.." do you think that that doesn't mean certain people?

No, we the people means we the people, citizens and non-citizens. What's your point?

 

[CLAX1911]

No, we the people means we the people, citizens and non-citizens. What's your point?

My point is you view is cognitive dissonance.

Reason for that is, all people are people. But our constitution doesn't apply to people in China.

 

[JasperL]

My point is you view is cognitive dissonance.

Reason for that is, all people are people. But our constitution doesn't apply to people in China.

Correct, it applies to the people of the United States, within our borders, which includes citizens and non-citizens.