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

[pamak]

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.

"We the people.." was followed by this

Constitution for the United States - We the People

3: 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.

It was obvious that the apportionment of representatives was not based on counting just citizens!

End of story!

 

[CLAX1911]

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

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

 

[CLAX1911]

"We the people.." was followed by this

Constitution for the United States - We the People

3: 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.

It was obvious that the apportionment of representatives was not based on counting just citizens!

End of story!

So what's wrong with asking people on the census whether their citizens or not?

 

[johnwk]

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.

Getting back to the question being on the census form, in 2015 when Obama asked in the American Community Survey, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”, one of the reasons he gave for asking the question is, it is “used to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed.” So, according to Obama, it’s important to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” for the above stated reasons.


JWK


The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

 

[JasperL]

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

I've answered your question, repeatedly. If you're not trolling, what's your point in asking the question, getting an answer, ignoring it, asking again, ignoring the answer, asking it again, ignoring the answer, etc... Do you think you'll get a different answer than the previous five times that you've ignored five times?

 

[pamak]

So what's wrong with asking people on the census whether their citizens or not?

I did not debate if it is right or wrong. My short intervention was to make it crystal clear that the "people" does not include just citizens. The "wrong" I hear is that the inclusion of such question will result inn under-counting the number of "people" in the state. So, your question is more like "what is wrong with under-counting the number of people in the States?" The answer is that such action or intent goes against the intentions of the Constitution which, you like it or not, counts citizens and non citizens in the apportionment of taxes and representatives.

 

[CLAX1911]

Getting back to the question being on the census form, in 2015 when Obama asked in the American Community Survey, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”, one of the reasons he gave for asking the question is, it is “used to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed.” So, according to Obama, it’s important to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” for the above stated reasons.


JWK


The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

I still don't understand the objection to asking that question.

Why asking someone a question means they're not counted must be some crazy conspiracy theorists idea on this issue

 

[CLAX1911]

I've answered your question, repeatedly. If you're not trolling, what's your point in asking the question, getting an answer, ignoring it, asking again, ignoring the answer, asking it again, ignoring the answer, etc... Do you think you'll get a different answer than the previous five times that you've ignored five times?

I'll ask it a different way.

What in your mind is the damage that makes you think that asking someone if they're a citizen or not means they're not counted?

 

[CLAX1911]

I did not debate if it is right or wrong. My short intervention was to make it crystal clear that the "people" does not include just citizens. The "wrong" I hear is that the inclusion of such question will result inn under-counting the number of "people" in the state. So, your question is more like "what is wrong with under-counting the number of people in the States?" The answer is that such action or intent goes against the intentions of the Constitution which, you like it or not, counts citizens and non citizens in the apportionment of taxes and representatives.

okay this whole people thing and whether or not people are counted is a red herring that I've fallen for a couple times.

Asking someone whether or not they're a citizen doesn't mean they're not counted. It's just a question.

so I don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole because it's really off topic and frankly it's a conspiracy theory so I'm not interested.

 

[pamak]

okay this whole people thing and whether or not people are counted is a red herring that I've fallen for a couple times.

Asking someone whether or not they're a citizen doesn't mean they're not counted. It's just a question.

so I don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole because it's really off topic and frankly it's a conspiracy theory so I'm not interested.

If you see the discussion regarding the intentions of the Constitution as "red herring," then you basically argue that as long as you think that something is "right," the intentions of the Constitution do not matter.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you see the discussion regarding the intentions of the Constitution as "red herring," then you basically argue that as long as you think that something is "right," the intentions of the Constitution do not matter.

On whether or not we should ask a question on a census? Show me in the Constitution where it says you can't ask people questions on the census.

 

[pamak]

On whether or not we should ask a question on a census? Show me in the Constitution where it says you can't ask people questions on the census.

After you show me where it says that you SHOULD ask the question.

 

[CLAX1911]

After you show me where it says that you SHOULD ask the question.

So there has to to be constitutional support for questions asked on the census? You'll have to show me that in the Constitution.

 

[pamak]

So there has to to be constitutional support for questions asked on the census? You'll have to show me that in the Constitution.

Welcome to the discussion of the intentions of the Constitution which you sooo hastily tried to dismiss as "red herring,"....after of course you tried to explore them when you started talking about the Founding Fathers and the meaning of the phrase"We the people." It is just that when it turned out that you could not use such path to support your position, the whole thing became suddenly "red herring."

 

[JasperL]

I'll ask it a different way.

What in your mind is the damage that makes you think that asking someone if they're a citizen or not means they're not counted?

The short and sufficient answer is Census tested this with ACS and determined that the citizenship question drove down response rates, significantly. So if you want to drive down response rates, increase the cost, worsen accuracy, then include the question. If you want a more accurate, easier, and less costly Census, exclude it. The study's been cited multiple times on this thread and/or others.

Sorry that I'm referring to evidence, again.

 

[JasperL]

Getting back to the question being on the census form, in 2015 when Obama asked in the American Community Survey, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”, one of the reasons he gave for asking the question is, it is “used to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed.” So, according to Obama, it’s important to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” for the above stated reasons.

Here's the ACS page where they describe the reasons for various questions. I don't believe the purpose of citizenship question was the one you cited, because it makes no sense. The demand for schools, hospitals, and fire stations doesn't hinge on 'citizen' or 'non-citizen' but PEOPLE.

I'll quote and link to the explanation that's actually there:

Why We Ask About...Place of Birth, Citizenship, Year of Entry | American Community Survey | US Census Bureau

Place of Birth, Citizenship, Year of Entry
We ask questions about a person’s place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry into the United States to create data about citizens, noncitizens, and the foreign-born population.

Agencies and policymakers use our published statistics to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws, understand the experience of different immigrant groups, and enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on national origin. These statistics also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.

Those reasons make sense.

 

[CLAX1911]

Welcome to the discussion of the intentions of the Constitution which you sooo hastily tried to dismiss as "red herring,"....after of course you tried to explore them when you started talking about the Founding Fathers and the meaning of the phrase"We the people." It is just that when it turned out that you could not use such path to support your position, the whole thing became suddenly "red herring."

That was a discussion about what is meant by "people"which when I thought about it was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[cpwill]

An executive order cannot supersede a court ruling.

Maybe :shrug: it depends on what is at issue, I would imagine. SCOTUS' ability to do whatever it likes isn't found in the Constitution, but rather has simply been argued by SCOTUS. SCOTUS' has been ignored by President's before.

An Executive Order does not override a Supreme Court or other judicial decision and it does not overturn or circumvent the congressionally established process for determining the content of the census.

LOL, but overriding Congress and the Constitution is fine if it's a policy goal you approve of. Got it.

 

[CLAX1911]

The short and sufficient answer is Census tested this with ACS and determined that the citizenship question drove down response rates, significantly.

So if you want to drive down response rates, increase the cost, worsen accuracy, then include the question. If you want a more accurate, easier, and less costly Census, exclude it. The study's been cited multiple times on this thread and/or others.

Sorry that I'm referring to evidence, again.

Wonder why it would drive down responses.

 

[bubbabgone]

It didn't 'sound' contrived but the evidence showed was contrived, made up, a pretense for some unknown reason not states. And if you read the case, the determination that the citizenship question was NOT included to enforce the VRA was objective and based on the evidence before the court, i.e. nothing in the record indicating anyone at DoJ actually needed the citizenship question for VRA purposes.

"... Now, for the first time, this Court has seen fit to claim a
role with respect to the inclusion of a citizenship question
on the census, and in doing so, the Court has set a dangerous precedent, both with regard to the census itself and
with regard to judicial review of all other executive agency
actions. For the reasons ably stated by JUSTICE THOMAS,
see ante, p. ___ (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
in part), today’s decision is either an aberration or a license for widespread judicial inquiry into the motivations
of Executive Branch officials. If this case is taken as a
model, then any one of the approximately 1,000 district
court judges in this country, upon receiving information
that a controversial agency decision might have been
motivated by some unstated consideration, may order the
questioning of Cabinet officers and other high-ranking
Executive Branch officials, and the judge may then pass
judgment on whether the decision was pretextual...." - Samuel Alito

 

[JasperL]

"... Now, for the first time, this Court has seen fit to claim a
role with respect to the inclusion of a citizenship question
on the census, and in doing so, the Court has set a dangerous precedent, both with regard to the census itself and
with regard to judicial review of all other executive agency
actions. For the reasons ably stated by JUSTICE THOMAS,
see ante, p. ___ (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
in part), today’s decision is either an aberration or a license for widespread judicial inquiry into the motivations
of Executive Branch officials. If this case is taken as a
model, then any one of the approximately 1,000 district
court judges in this country, upon receiving information
that a controversial agency decision might have been
motivated by some unstated consideration, may order the
questioning of Cabinet officers and other high-ranking
Executive Branch officials, and the judge may then pass
judgment on whether the decision was pretextual...." - Samuel Alito

That didn't respond, at all, to my comment. Ross and the White House lied their asses off. It's in the record. Alito and you, apparently, just don't care

 

[bubbabgone]

That didn't respond, at all, to my comment. Ross and the White House lied their asses off. It's in the record. Alito and you, apparently, just don't care

Your comment to me just attempted to say my original comment wasn't true.
The comment of mine that you just replied to tried to drag you back to my original point.
Alito and I, (and I didn't read his opinion until this morning) was exactly what I was talking about.
It ain't a Judge's place to render decisions based on imagined motivation.
Can o' worms, that will be.

 

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Getting back to the question being on the census form, in 2015 when Obama asked in the American Community Survey, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”, one of the reasons he gave for asking the question is, it is “used to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed.” So, according to Obama, it’s important to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” for the above stated reasons.


JWK


The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

I still don't understand the objection to asking that question.

Why asking someone a question means they're not counted must be some crazy conspiracy theorists idea on this issue

One thing is certain, Justice Roberts needs to stop usurping policy making authority by second guessing its wisdom or reasonableness. For our courts to do so is to violate our system's separation of powers doctrine and act as an unelected legislature. Our Supreme Court was spot on when it stated:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. __ ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)


JWK

 

[johnwk]

After you show me where it says that you SHOULD ask the question.

Are you suggesting that asking the question on the census form violates Congress' assigned duties to adopt a universal rule of naturalization and conduct a census?

JWK

 

[pamak]

Are you suggesting that asking the question on the census form violates Congress' assigned duties to adopt a universal rule of naturalization and conduct a census?

JWK

I am saying that Judicial Review determines if an Executive Action violates Congressional duties or Constitutional principles, and when we have evidence of a deliberate attempt to use a question as a tool to under count "people," courts can certainly block such attempt.