The author writes “undocumented immigrants, even legal ones”. How can you be a legal undocumented person? If you have a visa, you are legal. If you have a green card, you are legal. You are “undocumented” if you don’t have legal authorization/documents.
It seems perfectly reasonable to put a citizenship question in the census.
1
I have no issue with the question.
The US government has the right to ask if you're a citizen, if you are, you have nothing to fear.
I have MUCH bigger things to worry about than this.
2
Kudos to Judge Furman for this decision! Hopefully, it will lay bare the insidious reasons for including this question on the 2020 census.
Between Article 1, Section 2 and the 14th amendment to the constitution, there is no valid reason why reporting citizenship status needs to be reported. All "persons" are required to be counted. End. of. discussion.
Information about citizenship status can easily be acquired through the American Community Surveys that are conducted by the Census Bureau between decennial counts. Therefore, it is not necessary to include any citizenship status questions on the Constitutionally required decennial count.
The fact that the party of Trump wants to use it to exclude such "persons" from the count for apportionment reasons is in-your-face xenophobic politics, and once again represents a major attempt to dehumanize our immigrant population.
Moreover, this proposal would slash federal funding and decrease Congressional representation from (predominantly blue) states that have historically welcomed immigrants to their communities.
If in fact the proposal to insert this question can be traced to Bannon's reign in the White House, emergence of such evidence will prove that it was solely politically motivated and unnecessary, as well as a violation of the Constitution itself.
6
The census count will never be accurate. If you're here illegally, why wouldn't you simply refuse to answer the door or hide in a back room while the interview takes place at the front door? We need to know who's living in our country, but the census numbers will be inaccurate.
1
It violates the right of a few while taking away the right of us all.
5
The Constitution says the census is to count people, Not voters or citizens. Congressional seats are appointed by the number of people, thus children, women, and slaves were counted, but could not vote. Slaves - who were not citizens - were counted for Congressional apportionment. They were not citizens and not voters. Likewise women were citizens but could not vote and were counted. Constitutional amendments cleared the way for voting by these groups. Some states gave women the vote before the Congressional amendment - but they were counted by the census. People were counted regardless of voting eligibility States must certify voting roles.
The South was over represented in Congress until slaves could vote. Many northern states allowed Freeman voting rights, while Southern states banned free blacks from voting. the Civil War, and women could not vote until 1920 but were all counted. All of this backed by historic records. Once again some GOP politicians wants to change the Constitution through illegal means.
Congress is sworn to uphold the Constitution. How can they do this and make these comments. They are misleading and lying. Since 1790 states and local voting records are the basis for voting.
The Federal government defines citizenship and immigration rights, states define voting rights. Why Congress wants to add this just question makes no sense. Probably more dead citizens are on the voting roles in rural states. American democracy is at stake.
5
It sounds like this is indeed a political ploy. However, the article seems to conflate legal with illegal immigration in considering the targets of this question. There's no such group as "undocumented immigrants, even legal ones"; legal immigrants are not classified as "undocumented."
The constitution requires a census of all person residing in the United States - whether citizen, documented or undocumented. If a question interferes with an accurate count it is anti-constitution. The constitution requires reapportionment of congressional districts based on the population - not the number of citizens.
The question serves no purpose, other than to intimidate noncitizens and thereby undercount the population of the states or drive deeper partisan divisions than already exist.
The judge got it right - the question was put forward in "bad=faith".
3
This is ridiculous, even slaves were counted back in the day. To not count people who live here means that the states they live in will not have a current count on the people who live there. That means when it comes to allocating funds for various projects, those states will suffer. But then, that's the whole idea isn't it?
5
Allocated funds? You mean money generated from taxes, don’t you? In other words...you believe American citizens should pay for “various projects” that serve the interests of foreign nationals residing illegally in our country.
1
Given Trump's propensity for excluding all things brown, such as the recent denaturalization program, even legally present immigrants would have qualms about answering that question. Perhaps if the question was rephrased such that it asked "Are you a citizen or a legal permanent resident of the USA?", it would reflect a different state of mind for the government than "Are you a US citizen?".
Inclusion of this question is geared at precisely the outcome that this article points out: unfair political gain.
2
Any official actions by Team Trump should raise suspicions of meanness and harassment. Nothing in his temperament and behavior remotely encourages confidence. The first emotion is fear whether you are an American citizen, prisoner or immigrant. For the first time ever, I feel uncomfortable about the census process. We must start asking ourselves when will this madness end?
6
When we ourselves stop it.
3
States / districts should not get additional representation or money because they choose to accept illegal immigrants.
3
There are probably two categories of people who will be intimidated into not filling out the form. The first will be those who are in the country illegally, and who would not have filled out the form, not matter what it said, to avoid identifying themselves in any government database whatsoever. This category of people will be totally unaffected by the added language, since they wouldn't have completed the form in any event.
The second category of people who will not fill out the form are those who would have filled it out, but who are now terrified because of the demagoguery used in the political statements about the language. So the problem critics allege has been self created and perpetuated.
The form already asks a multitude of questions to gain statistical information about the people residing in the United States. Some of them ask the race or ethnicity of the person. If race or ethnicity is a legitimate question to ask ( and it is), why, then, is a question about citizenship so objectionable? If we must get demographic information about our residents, certainly knowing how many citizens versus non citizens live here is an absolutely legitimate question to ask.
1
The Constitution defines "citizen". It also specifies that, every 10 years, "all persons" must be counted. The Constitution is not using language carelessly, but you are.
5
IF the citizenship question goes onto the census, I, for one, though born in Massachusetts, will leave it blank.
I will start a movement to urge other citizens to do the same.
Are you in?
7
I thought the Constitution specified that "every person" be counted every 10 years, not "every citizen." To be constitutional, therefore, everyone must be counted. Adding this question indubitably threatens those here without documents, discouraging their participation.
Now this article notes that the idea came from Kris Kobach, and the motivations become clear.
6
The Constitution doesn't say you have to be a citizen only that representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned according to the respective numbers of people that will include free persons, indentured servants, excluding Indians not taxed and 3/5 ths of all other persons shall be counted every ten years.
So the founding fathers where very vague but they definitely did not ask if you are a citizen.
If it was good enough back then I don't see any reason to change it.
16
"If only citizens were counted for reapportionment, “California would give up several congressional seats to states that actually honor our Constitution and federal law,” one leader of the anti-immigrant movement, Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, said in February."
If that's the case, perhaps it's past time to reconsider having 2 Senators per state. Why should Iowa have the same number of Senators as California when Iowa's population is less than Los Angeles. Does Iowa really deserve more representation in the Senate than California?
As a part time Kansas resident I can say that Kris Kobach has more than a strong position against illegal immigration, aka dark skinned people. He has always promoted fear of all "the illegals" voting but can't provide proof because it's not happening. The fact is that the current GOP can't win elections if everyone votes. All the more reason to get out and vote in November!
20
Apparent bad faith? The Trump administration and the GOP are the black hole of bad faith from which no truth can escape.
If any sliver of truth somehow slips out the responsible malefactor will be hunted down and ground to pieces by the Trump tweeting machine in the dead of the night before Trump begins his work day of self enrichment and destroying America.
13
Far too many commenters have not bothered to read the article; comprehend what it's about- or don't care:
It isn't about Immigration. The article is about using the U.S. Census as an alleged means of insuring the integrity of the Voting Rights Act.
Quite simply; a Census *counts* everyone here irrespective of the right to vote (minors do not vote and prisoners typically lose their right).
Word of advise; please read before hitting "enter". This is not Disqus; Facebook or any number of places where "trigger-finger" commenting is the standard.
4
If you believe that this Administration - and especially Sessions’ Department of Justice - actually cares about “insuring the integrity of the Voting Rights Act,” then I have a beautiful, magnificent bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
5
@Easy E: You apparently did not catch my sarcasm; the operative word is "alleged." This administration (and Jeff Sessions' Justice Department) is using the question as a red herring to dilute the Census numbers. There is nothing in my comment to conclude [that] I believe this Administration is concerned about the integrity of the Voting Rights Act.
Again- too eager to pounce- rather than read.
There are probably more legal non-citizen foreigners living in the U.S. than illegals and they need to be counted in the census. Resident aliens (yes, that is their legal definition) pay taxes at the local state and federal level even though they aren’t allowed to vote. Under certain circumstances they are also entitled to the same services as citizens so they need to be counted. There is something vaguely reminiscent of the Constitution’s requirement that slaves be counted as 3/5’s of a person in the explanations by Wilbur Ross and others about how the census added this question.
10
Everyone following this issue should at least get acquainted with the fact that asking about citizenship is much more common than not on all previous censuses.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/02/census-stop-asking-citizenship/
The only reason it is an issue this time is that (a) there are now so many illegal "immigrants" in key Blue states, like California, that they account for a few House seats, (b) thanks to Voting Rights Act driven racial/ethnic gerrymandering, they reside in largely Hispanic districts, and (c) Democrats know that the districts vote reliably for Democrats, so (d) Democrats don't want their "constituents" undercounted.
9
Trump and his cabinet have as much experience telling the truth as they do herding unicorns.
24
Amazing. Judge Furman caught Ross in a bold-faced lie. Thank God there are a few judges who still have good sense, for all the good it will do us.
33
The census is the means by which we count the population of the US, set congressional districts and apportion seats in the House of Representatives. The census is taken every 10 years in accord with the founding principle of our nation; that there must be no taxation without representation.
Although non citizen residents cannot vote for representatives, they pay taxes and are entitled to representation. For the Republican Party and Donald Trump to attempt to not count them, or make them too afraid to be counted, is plainly un American and an act of desperation that acknowledges their corrupt attempt to destroy the American democracy.
11
Maybe we could come up with some new categories of people who count as 3/5 of a person...Wouldn't be the first time.
13
If we had Open Borders and the immediate right to vote and all of the other rights of citizenship (but not the corresponding “duties”), so-called citizenship would be irrelevant. International Law requires the United States to have Open. Orders and the immediate right to vote and citizenship rights. The trump administration is violating Human Rights!
A census is taken every 10 years in accord with the founding principle of our nation; that there must be no taxation without representation. That census is the means by which we count the population of the US, set congressional districts and apportion seats in the House of Representatives.
Although non citizen residents cannot vote for representatives, they pay taxes and are entitled to representation. For the Republican Party and Donald Trump to attempt to not count them, or make them too afraid to be counted, is plainly un American and an act of desperation that acknowledges their corrupt attempt to destroy the American democracy.
39
The actions of this administration look more and more like a slow-motion coup. Or better, a slow-motion putsch.
15
Surprise! We’re a sovereign nation with recognized borders and immigration laws. Apparently, neo-Dems deem national sovereignty and immigration laws as undesirable racist constructs, which is why we...moderate liberal democrats...won’t be voting for them in November.
18
@Shenoa, there is nothing in the dems opinions that says no borders OR no laws. We just dont want RACIST laws, and we want to welcome people who are refugees, particularly from devastation zones we have created, like Syria, Afghanistan, or Yemen, as well as people who really need help like Haitians and Puerto Ricans.. Your exaggeration of the democrats stance is why I will never vote republican - they lie!
43
There are approximately 6 BILLION people living in poor, often violent third world countries. Exactly how many of them are YOU willing to be responsible for...personally....providing them food, housing, education, healthcare, welfare, and jobs?
Three? One? None?
Puerto Ricans are already US citizens: They are free to live where they like in the United States.
3
The US census is to count US citizens. If the question deters non-citizens from participating, that is fine. Non-US citizens should not even be allowed to fill out census forms. That's like counting tourists in a census. Does Hawaii get more "allocation of resources" because so many foreigners vacation there? Of course not. Makes no sense.
14
Nadia, please read the Constitution before you supply a comment.
6
You're wrong. Read the 14th Amendment: "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." Doesn't say anything about Citizens, but whole persons. The intent of the census is to count people, not Citizens.
6
No. You’re incorrect. The Census is a population count, based on actual counts of persons dwelling in U.S. residential structures. Nothing in the Constitution (Article I, Section 2), nor in the 14th Amendment, specifies these persons be “citizens.”
10
Y'all focused so much attention on Pruitt, that you forgot about Ross.
6
Question for Wilbur Ross, Jr., "What is your connection to the Russian financial sector and offshore accounts?"
Oh, don't want to answer that?
21
Ask Trump and Ross if the Ukraine and Crimean borders mean anything .
6
The citizen question wouldn't be so controversial but for the mistrust of govt. earned by our leadership over many years. The real fear is the continued corrupt use of this information to perpetrate injustice & cruelty against whoever the perceived "enemy" at the time is by enough smalled minded citizens.
5
the census should count only U.S. citizens and LEGAL immigrants. It is preposterous to count those persons here illegally. It's time we saturated the courts with common -sense Republican judges, rather than the "open border" judges who try to side-step the rule of law in our country.
11
Sure. Give up a valuable tool for future planning because of fear.
What not instead start screaming to your reps to keep the Census as apolitical and independent as possible? And to insure funding to allow the best protections against hacking?
5
The current administration has emphasized that it does not hold immigrants - whether those here legally, illegally or even those who have recently become citizens - to be equal to native-born (white) citizens. The Trump administration has employed people who have made open, spurious arguments that such residents cost more than they provide into the government. Between its policy pronouncements and the openly racist sewage from the President, such immigrants are well aware that the administration would like to kick them out of the US.
So, it's entirely reasonable for anyone who is not currently a citizen, whether here legally or not, to want to avoid declaring themselves via the Census if it has a citizenship question. It's fear-based exclusion for political ends.
19
The question about citizenship would seem necessary if we expect our government to plan for the future and devote themselves to promoting a strong economy and prosperity for everyone who lives hereDespite rhetoric suggesting that everyone who has questions about undocumented immigrants is simply a racist my conversations with people of many different political affiliations suggests otherwise. What I've heard over and over is not fear of other ethnic groups but fear of our own government - a feeling that this issue is being used as a political football instead of formulating a full and reasoned plan for how to integrate immigrants in to our society. People are afraid that it's a replay of the 90s where the government allowed jobs to be outsourced without having any plan in place for the unemployment and underemployment which any thinking person could see would be the inevitable result. This is what people fear: a government dominated by two warring parties so obsessed with remaining in power that they'll allow anything to happen if it will get them votes. What people want: a government that is fair, just and compassionate - one that plans not just until the next election but decades in to the future. We want a government that plans the economy, and looks to the future, so it benefits the most people possible. What we don't want is to be governed by one of two parties who devote most of their time to planning campaigns and propaganda to benefit themselves and remain in power.
6
You've given no coherent reason why a citizenship question has anything to do with effective government! You also overlook the clear history and motives of the Trump administration in wanting to add such a question to the census form — it's part of a deliberate scheme to suppress population counts and thereby undercut democratic representation, especially to reduce the number of Congressmen in areas that support the Democratic Party.
The citizenship question isn't just a question. It is a deliberate effort to undermine the democracy. The Constitution calls for representation based on the number of people — NOT the number of citizens!
It's part of the very extensive voter suppression the Republicans have undertaken for more than a decade — that includes efforts to make it harder for people to vote, to purge rolls, to have fewer polling stations in minority areas, to have shorter hours, to make voter registration far more difficult, etc.
“A pox on both their houses” ignores the many extensive *nonpartisan* analyses that document richly that it is the *Republicans* who are responsible for the *lion's share* of partisan politicking, attacks on democracy and the rule of law, on science, on facts, on compromise, and on reasoned policy. That's the reality that you are ignoring.
19
So why wouldn’t you want to know the true population when “planning for the future”? Most undocumented immigrants pay taxes and many of them use public services. If you don’t count them, you are underestimating actual population sizes using schools and roads. Local governments use the census to plan their services and need to know the true number of people in their area. Whereas knowing the number of citizens affects... what? We’re not required to vote, so not the number of voters. It’s not connected to services used or taxes paid as closely as the actual population, documented or not. So basically, it’s not necessary for planning and is just a ploy by one party to get more power at the expense of running the government well. I agree, we need two parties who care about actually running a country, not just power grubbing. I just don’t see how your first statement connects to any of it.
8
But the other party is using the presence of people who entered this country illegally to its advantage. Is that ok? Knowing the actual number of citizens is basic information about our country.
Sure illegal immigrants who won’t fill a census form pay taxes! Sure they do. I know many illegal immigrants. They send their money home, not to the IRS. One guy I know has three kids and pays no taxes, drives without a drivers license or insurance. Sends enough money home that he bought a house in case he is deported a third time. But he really works hard and makes good money. I would like to know how many such people are there to understand their impact. Census can help.
The last time I spoke to a census taker I was asked my race. I answered human. The census taker laughed and said "that's what I'll put down; you'd be surprised how many people gave the same answer." She added "and you'd be really surprised to learn how many Klingons we apparently have living in this country...."
It's not racist to think it's important for planning purposes to know how many undocumented immigrants live here. You can't plan a future for our country if you don't have the facts.
8
It's reasonable to want to know how many actual people are living in the country, period, Frightening undocumented people from responding provides a totally inaccurate count.
10
Well, I certainly won't be answering any census questions this time. See you in ten years, unless you are playing baby games then too. We don't need YOU in California (racists.)
4
It may affect reapportionment, but it will not affect the people who filled it out unless the Supreme Court acts to open the census early since the details are not available to anyone until 70 years has passed since the census was taken. The 1950 census will be opened to public view (and government view) on an individual basis in two years. If this can be published to get over the scare factor it shouldn't have an affect, but it still will. The intent is political, not based on the purpose of the census.
4
Check out The American Community Survey currently being conducted by the census bureau. There are 6 questions for everyone in the house. Q's 1 thru 4 are name, relationship, sex,and date of birth.
Question 5 is if the person is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin. It then asks:: no, your not, yes, Mexican, Mexican Am, Chicanco; yes, Puerto Rican; yes, Cuban.
Question #6 asks for a person's race with boxes for everything but latino heritage.
Tell me this information isn't going to wind up in ICE's databank.
6
It's "clever" of you to try to guess at other opinions I hold, and to use my logic as a jumping off point for your rabid triple question mark comment, but since neither of us has a time machine, I guess we'll have to continue running this country the way it is now. I did say the frontier closed 150 years ago....
1
This is what the current census asks. It winds up in Census data you can look at yourself. It's all aggregated. You can't see individuals. ICE can't see individuals. They can see the areas where Latinos live, that's all. Did you want to stop collecting anything about race or ethnicity so we can protect illegal immigrants? That would hurt a lot more people than it helps.
It's "clever" of you to try to guess at other opinions I hold, and to use my logic as a jumping off point for your rabid triple question mark comment, but since neither of us has a time machine, I guess we'll have to continue running this country the way it is now.
1
My grandparents arrived here in New York Harbor in 1902 with their twin sons, one of them my father. My other grandparents arrived here in 1917 with a young daughter, my mother. After they got off the boat, they, and all the other immigrants, regardless of the languages they spoke, were told that, if they returned in one year and signed a paper to that effect, they would be given citizenship papers. My grandparents did so and thus became citizens with no cost or anything other than their signatures on a piece of paper. They were all white. Others were not so lucky.
Most American Indians were here years before George Washington, but they weren't white, and spoke a strange language to boot. We considered them enemies and tried to kill them all. There was little talk about making them citizens in the "New World's" new country. And then there were blacks, who were brought here in slave ships and were sold as slaves to the highest bidders. Honest Abe declared them free citizens, and then was murdered. Chinese came here in the middle 1800's, but they weren't white, and had a hard time. This led to the Chinese Exclusion Act, and later on to the wicked Japanese internment camps in WW 2. All of that hatred was wicked, nothing else.
Now the objects of our hatred are Muslims and Hispanics because they look different and sound different. We even take their children away. Trump is wicked to the core!
Where is Honest Abe when we need him? Trump is no Honest Abe!
6
Your “Honest Abe” lead the charge to exterminate Native Americans.
1
As it should be. Stupid question, since it has nothing to do with the needs of the people, and how they are represented, which is what the census is supposed to address.
8
It took black people centuries to be counted as full citizens; when my mother died in 1949, a "colored" woman in Virginia, she had never had the opportunity to vote.
My older siblings, were given the minimal amount of schooling because there was no funding for black schools, no electrical lines to rural areas, no roads nor healthcare; we were black Appalachians.
Republicans and in some measure Democrats, fighting against each other used our demographics as fodder; doled out minimal services to black people until a "new" and more humane President L.B. Johnson passed The Voting Rights Act, there was then the beginning of progress for all.
At this juncture, it is time for Democrats and Republicans to focus on the poor citizens of this country.
Great stretches of Appalachia are still hurting, black and white America, and poor citizens in rural areas as well as black citizens in the cities.
It is time to count every citizen; support the people who have suffered for too long; we don't need to import illegal immigrants to coddle; citizenship counts.
Let the Decennial Census count the rightful citizens of our country, without dilution.
10
They can’t discern the difference between citizens and non-citizens? Our country’s sovereignty is in serious jeopardy when even federal judges start pandering to the millions foreign nationals brazenly crossing our borders illegally. Wake up, already!
11
"If only citizens were counted for reapportionment, “California would give up several congressional seats to states that actually honor our Constitution and federal law,” one leader of the anti-immigrant movement, Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, said in February."
Sure, Steve. Are you inviting ICE to raid every farm, restaurant, meatpacking plant, construction site and landscaping firm in all of Iowa?
16
Whether the question is ultimately added or not, by now, is moot.
There's enough fear not only among non-citizens, but even naturalized citizens, who may have misgivings about how honestly to answer the census' questions, if at all.
We live in a time where new data points, created moment-by-moment, through any venue is no longer "private". Those data points are collected by innumerable 3rd parties, and profiles of ourselves are compiled accordingly. What happens next with that data is what's on people's minds.
Thus, better not to participate at all, or at least not be completely honest, increasingly becomes the default tactic.
And as to answering anything "honestly"...? Well, we live in a different time now. It seems the highest-placed people in government and society aren't putting too much stock in honesty to begin with...
4
"But some experts say they believe asking about citizenship could accomplish the same goal by discouraging undocumented immigrants, even legal ones, from being counted."
What is a legal undocumented immigrant? Aren't all legal immigrants required to be documented?
8
Boy did you miss the point. Since you oh-so favor the rule of law, here is the law: (1) The law charges the census taker with counting everyone living here, as accurately as it can, regardless of immigration status. Any effort by the census taker to discount persons because of their immigration status runs afoul of the law. (2) Congressional redistricting and the allocation of certain benefits are based on the as-accurate-as-practical census count.
So, the census question issue presented has nothing to do with whether we have too much immigration. It is whether the true reason for its inclusion on the form is partisanship, i.e to increase Republican power by a deliberate effort to discount those that the law says should be counted. Given the developing evidence that other articulated reasons for including the question are not credible and accordingly pretextual, I say shame on the administration's contempt for the law.
15
That's the GOP for ya - they know they can only win by cheating. The party gave up the pretense of being interested in good governance through popular ideas and strong policy when Reagan waltzed in the door.
12
To those oh-so concerned about the undemocratic injustice of having representation in the legislative branch not proportionally reflecting the citizens who are qualified to vote, I suggest you begin with reforming the Senate. That is where , where small population states have legislative power that is grotesquely disproportionate to their qualified-to-vote populations. A lot of good citizens are tired of the red tail wagging the blue dog.
13
I'm a citizen, born in the USA by extraordinary luck.
I have a good life - in a large part to more good luck.
You might think my"tribe" would be citizens.
No - I'm aligned with people who need some good luck.
But that aside - I won't cooperate by answering that question, because it has as much or to do with election rigging than anything else. (Come and get me ICE trolls.)
7
Many are cheering the comments of this judge. But if we step back from this issue and see what is happening between the federal judiciary and the executive branch, we should be very worried. The judiciary should not be putting its political opinions ahead of the executive, but this seems to be exactly what is happening. This is very similar to the judge in Hawaii blocking the travel ban. These may bring short-term liberal victories, but the precedent is terrible and long-lasting.
Here's what is going to happen when the next Democrat is elected President and begins enacting policies. Conservative groups are going to challenge in court, cherry-picking conservative judges. What is worse, the newly conservative Supreme Court will agree with the lower judges (in contrast to today). The result will be very few liberal policies will get enacted. This is not good for our democratic system.
We must be careful that the fight against Trump doesn't hurt our democracy even more in the long run. Look what happened when Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments in 2013. That ghost is about to come back against liberal causes for a second time with Kavanaugh.
3
An alternative proposal: the Administration should start complying with the law.
9
Did you read the article? States that have large immigrant populations are the ones threatened by the citizenship question. The bulk of your comment is off-topic.
6
The irony of the Steve King quote about "honoring our Constitution" is that his approach demonstrates a severe disrespect for what the Constitution actually says.
I'd bet good money that a newly sworn-in citizen would smoke him on a quiz on the Constitution.
17
One unelected and unaccountable judge can impose his will on the country. Democracy?
Congress has the power to establish the jurisdiction of any courts it creates (including the District Court for the Southern District of New York). Since the Left now brazenly floats court-packing schemes, let's put another idea -- eminently reasonable -- on the table: no federal judge has the authority to enjoin enforcement of a federal law alone. Only a three-judge panel could enjoin such a federal law or rule subject, as is the case now, to immediate appeal by the federal side.
4
The primary reason for reremoving the question is to prevent citizens from knowing just how many are illegally living in the United States. My wife is an immigrant. I support immigration, legal immigration. Our immigration laws need an overhaul, but we can't simply leave our borders open while waiting for that to happen.
7
The Decennial Census is an enumeration of the people in the country for congressional representation and other purposes.
The American Community Survey (ACS) helps local officials, community leaders, and businesses understand the changes taking place in their communities. It is the premier source for detailed population and housing information about our nation.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
The Trump Administration is purposefully confusing those separate functions to affect the numbers of people who voluntarily report in 2020. The foreseeable result is a gross undercount in urban areas (read, democrats.)
"Bad faith" scarcely describes the motive.
20
The Census is about current population numbers, not immigration numbers. Unfortunately, many people of the population go uncounted because of the fear of revealing their status skewing the most important thing - population numbers - therefore, leaving the system to be gamed by politicians.
13
Just look at Wilbur Ross.
Doesn't he remind you of the evil banker in the James Stewart movie, "It's a Wonderful Life"?
That movie is a tremendous example of what
WE THE PEOPLE can do to create the kind of United States of America WE want by wresting control from the current crop of Robber Barons and their thug operatives.
No, we won't bail out bankers. WE will bail out OUR governments at every level with OUR Socially Conscious votes.
NOW and in every election in the foreseeable future.
11
"But a federal judge said it appeared that the Commerce Department had acted in 'bad faith.' "
In a nutshell. This White House and the Trump Republicans. Bad faith. Bottomless bad faith.
50
Trump supports are often those that distrust government and show disdain for the rule of law and the rights afforded by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. What is so absurd then is the observation that Trump and his administration are repeatedly caught in lies. The administration is continually assaulting good government with its corrupt practices and yet, their supporters ignore the lies, the self-enrichment and self-serving goals that will inevitably harm Trump's base.
Ignoring millions of people who are contributing to our economy every day, for political gain, is another boondoggle the Alt-right is pushing to get through their nasty agenda...by hook or by crook as they say.
Immigrants helped to make our Country great and now Trump, the alt-right and their ilk are regressing the US...for what ultimate goal? A conspiracy to bring an end to what has made America great? To make America a fascist state ruled by a small group of selfish, mostly while males? Once accomplished that group can rid our country of minorities and put women back into subservient roles?
No...I've just been binge watching The Handmaid's Tale too much.
9
I just heard an NPR segment where Leonard Leo, the executive director of the Federalist Society and architect of the impending right wing takeover of the Supreme Court, stated that his group isn't outcome driven in judicial decisions. They merely want a faithful application of the laws and constitution as written. And he solemnly claimed this was Trump's sole motivation in his judicial appointments.
Strange then that the current Republican administration is hell bent on counting citizens as opposed to residents of our country. This directly contradicts the constitution which requires a count of all residents without reference to citizenship. The idea they're protecting the Voting Rights Act is ludicrous on its face. Instead this is a naked attempt to diminish Democratic representation in Congress and federal benefits in their districts after the 2020 census.
I understand it's human nature to value outcomes above a 'pure' process. But just be honest about it. If you really don't believe in representative democracy, just say so. If you don't really believe in the Constitution when it's politically inconvenient, just say so. And skip all the holier than thou protestations.
26
Thanks to United States District Court in Manhattan, Judge Jesse M. Furman!!!
Thanks to all the judges and state attorney generals who are working so diligently to preserve/restore democratic governance in OUR United States of America.
WE THE PEOPLE owe them deep gratitude and must do everything in our power to help them protect 99% of us.
NOW is the time.
41
Welcome to part of the GOP program to make America "White Again", by basically taking non citizens out of the census they are pushing to make America white again, because the blue states tend to have a lot more immigrants, legal and otherwise, but also in the red states most non whites likely have moved there in recent decades and are also likely not citizens.
And this isn't just about illegal immigrants folks, this discounts legal immigrants who are not citizens, it excludes legal and illegal immigrants from all over as people, which is what the census is about. It will exclude people who are green card or otherwise legally authorized to work here, it will nullify those waiting to become a citizen (a process the GOP has totally thrown monkey wrenches in, deliberately, in their effort to stem the 'brown tide' Middle America fears). It hurts Asians and South Asians as much as it does Hispanics.
What we are seeing is basically Apartheid based around Middle America, its supposed values (you know, like hate and bigotry), where a diminishing minority is locked into power by a GOP looking to keep their base in place so they can serve their real masters, the ultra rich and corporations. Good for the states fighting this, though the sad reality is if it gets to Scotus it is highly likely that the court with this new cluck Kavanaugh Trump has nominated will be perfectly fine with "make America white again".
19
bill d, I am okay with making the country black and white; when Democrats continue with such irrational policies as the call to abolish ICE, sanctuary cities and Congressional Representation for illegal immigrants, then the country will continue to be RED all over.
lie upon lie upon lie
what has happened to our country
the end justifies the means philosophy is not always the best to follow
19
Pretty smart move by the Trump administration.
3
pretty smart move by the people who run the Trump administration
3
The GOP line seems to be that the undocumented and documented shouldn't be counted because they don't have a right to be here in the first place or aren't citizens, notwithstanding the language of the census clause of the Constitution. But instead of offering an amendment to bar counting the undocumented or even non-citizen lawful residents, they are using the nonsense excuse of strengthening the Voting Right Act. Undocumented residents and documented residents use public services. An undercount of them hurts cities and states where they reside because it reduces their representation in Congress.
21
The slow wheels of justice will reveal these crooks and liars for what they are. Ross turns out to be more despicable each time we learn more about him.
34
The slow wheel of TIME and justice will reveal their true construct: CROOKS AND LIARS.
6
Citizenship question on the Census?
What does the Constitution say on this subject?
1
Not including the citizen question would reward Democrats for using "undocumented" folks to bolster population figures for political advantage... which could well be the motivation for "sanctuaries"
One suspects Democrats would not be so "welcoming and inclusive" if those crossing the border were all future Republicans...as legal immigrants tend to be.
17
Some interesting facts regarding your comment. There are app. 327 million people in our country in 2018, only 2.9 million are native to our country, the other 324 million people are immigrants or descend from immigrants. Another two pretty remarkable numbers, there are 44 million members of the Democratic Party and 32 million members of the Republican Party. And you ask how can this be? It’s because the Republicans have brilliantly gerrymandered the house districts to take control of the house with fewer votes. The Republicans have Senators from the rural states while the Democrats have Senators from the urban states. It is a strategy worthy of Lyndon Johnson or Tip O’Neill. The Democrats are awash with people of principle mixed up with people of ambition who just aren’t of the level of the Republicans. Sorry but your grand conspiracy theories are just dust, the Republicans hold the cards, they’re the smart people in the room right now.
1
"A Commerce Department spokeswoman, Rebecca Glover, said there was no inconsistency between the two statements." Ms. Glover went on to say, "Characterizations of the secretary’s prior public statements as somehow misleading are false." Ms. Glover is correct about this. Wilbur Ross's statements were not "somehow misleading;" they were outright, baldfaced lies.
55
The census doesn't do much to enforce the Voting Rights Act since many people don't consistently get census forms to fill out. I am 73, and I have only received one census form in my entire life. There are also many people who don't fill them out and send them in. The Voting Rights Act isn't enforced anyway, between gerrymandering, not enough. polling places, voter ID and electronic voting machines that are easily hacked. Who are they trying to kid? They would just as soon have most people not vote.
12
At the root, from the White House on down, the people who are trying to put that citizen question on the census are deeply deceptive, racist pigs
26
The citizenship question remains on the 2020 census.
8
I’m not trolling but truly do not understand the knee-jerk defense of all things immigrant.
Does bad luck somehow confer virtue?
In the minds of NYT readers apparently immigrants who are.not.citizens. deserve to be treated as citizens. It’s mind boggling.
Why do we have any obligation to illegal immigrants? If we truly cared about the less fortunate SF’s large population of progressives surely would have ended the homeless crisis there rather than have it expand by a factor of 10.
The census, and its resulting appropriation of electors and federal funding, should not count undocumented people because they, by definition, do not have the right to those things.
24
This liberal here, Arturo, believes that human beings deserve to be treated as human beings.
No one should have to endure the "bad luck" of having to suffer because the people who have good luck don't care.
8
"The census, and its resulting appropriation of electors and federal funding, should not count undocumented people because they, by definition, do not have the right to those things."
but they DO Arturo, they have the right to counsel, the right to be treated in any emergency room, the right of care and feeding if in prison, PLUS, some have kids who are US citizens and also need representation.
It's not as simple as some would like it to be.
10
Zadrydas v. Davis
533 US 678 (2001
Due Process Clause of the Constitution applies to all persons within the U.S. regardless if they are here legally or illegally.
14
another brick in the Trump wall.
5
"...a ploy to discourage immigrants..."
Ah, yes, the Orwellian word laundry at work. This issue is about ILLEGAL "immigrants". How did they get to be immigrants? Orwell would be proud.
Exactly the same people used to be called "illegal aliens". They still are under the law. But this term was apparently thought too offensive and otherworldly. Conjured up ET, I guess. So, the media began to call them "illegal immigrants" but this ran afoul of the "nobody is illegal movement". Next they became "undocumented immigrants". Then "immigrants lacking documents or authorization" as though, somehow they had left home without the right paperwork in their pants or skirt.
As any headline writer can tell you, if it takes a half dozen words to describe something, you need to shorten it. So, they were run through the Orwellian word laundry and came out clean -- as just plain old "immigrants".
Immigrants. You know, the folks who made this country. Ellis Island. Mayflower. And any of you folks who want the immigration laws enforced against these immigrants are nativists, racists, bigots.
Orwell is smiling.
40
If you read the context, you will find that your jumping-off point and, thus, your concluding line are off base.Far from being a word laundry, the context shows that CRITICS called it an attempt to discourage "immigrants," an inclusive term for legal and illegal immigrants from filling out the form. Many legal immigrants would be leery of filling out such a form, because it might bring scrutiny from authorities.
5
I don't think you really understand Orwell's notion of 'doublespeak' in 1984. He was writing about government-imposed language designed to influence the body politic.
What you are commenting on are cultural changes. Just as we don't tend to say 'illegal aliens' anymore, we also, as a society, have put stigma on many racially-tinged words that used to be in common usage. For example, people generally don't refer to Irish people as 'micks' anymore.
Some would refer to these cultural changes as political correctness. I see them as coming to a realization that we have been marginalizing specific groups in the populace, with one symptom of that being pejorative names. Fixing that language is one attempt to reduce racism and marginalization.
But these are cultural changes, not government-imposed changes, so no, Orwell wouldn't think it had much to do with 1984.
5
Wayne,
"Illegal aliens", to right this instant, is the term in law. It has not changed.
Can't imagine a Trump person lying, can you?
21
when ever wilbur wakes up something bad happens.
16
And just why should illegals have the "right" to representation in Congress? That is the right of citizens, not those who entered the country illegally.
7
Don't you just love the fact that Federal Judges in so-called elite places like New York and San Francisco seem to know so much about other people's motivations. It seems that this country is being run now by these judges. Thank you founding fathers for creating a Supreme Court to moderate their genius.
6
Judge Furman has made no claim to know other people's motivations. He has simply allowed the plaintiffs the ability to discover how and why the decision to add the citizenship question was made. If Secretary Ross's explanations had been consistent there would be no need for the additional search for evidence. Why shouldn't plaintiffs have the opportunity to find out what's behind the inconsistency?
1
You realize, of course, that Washington, D.C. is also just such an elite place.
2
Are there more than one Judge Furman? Federal judges are getting lots of good press - mostly little deserved.
Illegal immigrants, immigration scofflaws, undocumented immigrants, Visa overstays etc are all illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are not USA citizens. Our census should be correct and accurate and represent only USA citizens. This census question is complete fair and legitimate.
7
That literally is not the point of the census
12
I am an American citizen, the granddaughter/great-granddaughter of immigrants who came to the United States via chain migration.
If the citizenship question is on the census form, I will not answer it.
I will still be counted.
17
Why does the census have to be so long? If they just want to count people, why not just ask how many people live at this address? Instead it goes on for ages & pages asking things that are really none of the governments business (i.e., how many bathrooms are in the residence). Answer all the questions truthfully & the county tax assessor is knocking on your doors & raising your taxes. Renters just answer the questions & then move on before the government can find them. I grew up in a town in the 50s & 60s that had 504 people for 50 years on the city limits sign. It should not be illegal to refuse to answer the census form. By 2020 there will be no need for the census because there will be no government programs to assist citizens. It is just another waste of money & paper. Serves no true Constitutional purpose especially now.
2
It's all about not wanting to pay for anything new or do proper maintenance to our society. If you don't have all the information and all the correct numbers no matter what you try to do it will come out wrong and many people will be harmed. The Far Right has been not focused on just lowering taxes but the destruction of governments and order.
29
The only people who should be stripped of the right to vote are those who are still undecided within 24 hours of the polls opening.
10
If Wilbur Ross's mouth is moving, he is lying - or he is instructing his financial advisor to sell his stock short based on insider knowledge.
If the GOP is concerned about enforcing voting rights, why have they pushed to have some aspects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 terminated?
This is all about America becoming less white, and the party endorsed by white supremacists trying to maintain control.
As a 70 year old white, male Southerner, I'm old enough to have seen this story previously.
75
As a sixty plus year old westerner a bunch of rednecks out this way are the same. Fighting a war they lost but have never quit. I don’t wish them well
1
Kobach's support for the immigration question is a red flag. A federal judge has already cited him for misleading conduct in his personal litigation of a Kansas voting rights case.
84
A question regarding USA citizenship is completely fair and legitimate. Illegal immigrants of all types are not USA citizens. USA citizens deserve a correct and accurate census.
10
It doesn't matter for the purpose of the census if the respondent is an illegal immigrant or not
18
Wow-weaponizing the Commerce Department for political advantage. Where will this administration stop? Here's hoping that Wilbur Ross be the sixth cabinet official to leave office more misdeeds in collaboration with Sessions, Kobach, Bannon and lord knows who else.
36
Does the Justice Department want the 2020 Census have a question on criminal conviction - these individuals also are limited in their voting ability ... why isn't the administration focusing on enforcement of this part of the Voting Rights Act?
5
Thank goodness today, just one little day in this world, we have a story from across the globe, a story of humanity and bravery.
Because most days we have stories about the likes of this, a twisted, convoluted, conniving United States, the tearing apart of our democracy and reason. And what to do about it. Mostly, not much at all we can do about it.
Getting to be too mind boggling, too consuming.
No, today we can think about joy and hope - on the other side of the world instead, and it’s real.
17
This judgement demonstrates why it is more important than ever to have judges like that nice young man President Trump has nominated for the Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits politicians from interpreting or enforcing the law and the like for political advantage. They're politicians for God's sake, elected by God. The bible says God's elect, such as government officials and other blessed individuals, must be deferred to and obeyed. Evolution science has shown that only by allowing people to act on personal gain can we remain strong as a species and maintain our dominion over his creation and other species as God wants. Do we really want to be ruled by alien overlords? Freedom!!!
3
Think of it a bit differently. If the U.S. wishes to prosecute or deport non-citizens, Congress will have to budget for resources to accomplish these tasks. We have a right to know how much this will cost for taxation and budgeting purposes. Can 15 border agents drive a couple of vans across the border in Texas or do we need thousand of agents throughout all 50 states to do law enforcement. An accurate count of how many people are in the country has many uses.
Statisticians can use other government data like birth records, social security data, etc. to estimate pretty accurately, citizens vs. non-citizens. Respondents to the census can be ignore, misunderstand, or lie to questions . . . for lots of reasons. Dubious questions with unclear purpose are likely to increase reporting errors. Getting an accurate count of the population does not mean non-citizens are represented in congress. It means that congress has good data to use when passing laws and making policy.
3
Dear CWM,
Your answer alarms me. While you and others are debating about the Mexicans and others at our nation's southern border our planet's borders remain totally unguarded. We need President Trump's space force as soon as possible, although I guess for now ICE will do. And lets build THAT wall! Freedom!!!
Just as in gerrymandering the Republicans ALWAYS cheat their way through the election process because they realize they don't have the populace on their side. Something must be done about these cheaters.
70
I am astounded that this essential fact was not already on the Census Bureau's questionnaire. Their job is to tabulate information about the population, and that particular datum seems essential to me.
14
Yeah, but it's like asking if you've stopped beating your wife. You can't get a good straight answer out of anyone other than a citizen or a person who is here in good standing (foreign spouse, proper work visa, etc). The people putting it on the census form know what will happen. Their motivation is to deter illegal immigrants from answering any question so that when decisions are made about funding, places with large numbers of illegal immigrants get less funding. Fine by me. Sanctuary cities are a terrible idea. I don't think it will affect voting districting, but I suppose it could if we think that our representatives should represent people who have no right to vote (children, some ex-cons in some states, prison inmates, illegal immigrants) but live in their districts.
1
Guess your district could lose funding. Not sure.
1
The consummately sly and low-key Wilber Ross is the personal opposite of the ostentatious former E.P.A. Director Pruitt, but just as damaging in his role at the Commerce Department, a near-perfect underboss for Don the Con and his White House crew.
25
Under Trump, the Justice Department “has shown little interest in enforcing" numerous laws that the president and his staff have violated.
26
Another official in the Trump administration, Wilbur Ross, lied in official documents? I am shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you. Maybe the man who had an equity position in a Russian money laundering bank, Bank of Cypress, and who appears to have conducted stock transactions just ahead of public announcements, needs to be brought to justice for a change.
Of course these guys are trying to manipulate the census by any means they can.
They want to suppress voting among Democrats.
They want to funnel extra seats in the House to RED states based on "population."
They want to send extra tax money to RED states based on "population."
I hope the dirt slides out from under the rug.
105
The issue of the citizenship question on the census form is one that should be presented to Trump's SCOTUS nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
The rights established in the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States are equally important issues to examine with Judge Kavanaugh.
59
Mueller, where are you? The need is great for your investigations, and more so every day!
10
It seems the only defense We The People have left until November against this rogue and anti-American corrupt administration are the courts, SCOTUS excluded...naturally.
95
Thank you, judge. This should be an objective data collection project, not a partisan gerrymandering campaign.
198
The only people threatened by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would be illegal aliens. I think most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL aliens; i.e., foreigners in the US illegally.
It is the dream of almost every poor person in the world to come to here; that is, conservatively, hundreds of millions of people.
We cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. (This was also true during the two terms of President Obama.) It is therefore utterly impossible for US taxpayers to support the millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners (aliens) to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally (i.e., illegal aliens) and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal aliens, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, abuse, etc.
Abolishing ICE makes sense only to advocates of open borders, a policy no nation will ever approve. We will lose the mid-terms and 2020 elections if open borders are part of the Democratic platform.
Should be, but, wasn’t back in the 1800’s & early 1900’s. Which makes it a less than perfect way of getting ancestry information. Back then every government form asked for lots of unnecessary information. Like your death certificate included where your parents were born (state or country). That was so the government person doing the form could put the correct letter in the race column. Of course many of us ‘others’ lied. My mother’s ancestors (mother & her parents) said they were from Portuguese (in perfect English). For that got them a W in the race column. They were in fact Native Americans. But, my grandmother couldn’t have married my grandfather if there was an I in that column. It was illegal. But, no one called the people using that ‘dog whistle’ on the fact Portuguese is a language, not a country. So it worked. That word is sprinkled all through New England forms. From the Census, birth, marriage, death certificates, all had all those columns. As well as where those mentioned but not one of those who would use the forms, had to have their full names & current addresses on them. Census forms said on them that the census taker could not ask the race of the person they were talking to, but, should look at them & see the darkness of their skin & put their ‘best guess’ down. Now, that is racism. And didn’t work. I am enough NA that it should be down as MY race. I’m very fair skinned, blonde, hazel eyed. Look like Dad. Skin color doesn’t work. I’m proof.
A correct and accurate census is critical for apportionment of government resources. In some areas, Alaska and Hawaii are but two, getting an accurate count is extremely difficult. Not surprisingly, recent immigrants are reluctant to participate in the decennial census even without the citizenship question. This question is designed to intimidate the populace and will result in fewer people participating, reducing data accuracy. The less accurate the data are, the less useful they are. This voter suppression effort will have unintended consequences.
174
Perhaps you meant "intended" consequences, not "unintended".
8
Along with this, asking anyone whether they are a US citizen in already illegal. Those roadblocks, where people are asked for ID, are illegal. No American is required to carry ID. I have decided, since under ICE & Border Patrol rules I am often within their faked 100 miles of the boarder, to never carry ID again. I will refuse to answer. My husband will, so he will place me in my wheelchair & go home, leaving me sitting in the sun, rain, snow, cold, whatever. For however long it takes to bring notice to this abhorrent action. I’ll bring a good book, encase it gets boring. But, I will yell at every car that I am being held against my will, for something that IS NOT A CRIME. I call on all Boomers to do the same thing. We protested, were arrested, marched, for our rights. Now we must do it again. Make sure to bring a few days supply of any necessary medicines. And don’t bring your medicare cards, drivers license, or state alcohol ID. In case of strip searches. Oh, do bring a fully charged cell phone for video.
1
Suppressing accurate head count is the intended consequence. At one point slaves counted as 2/3rds of a person.
I think the US should know who is a citizen, who is visiting here legally, who has overstayed their visa, and who snuck in. Unfortunately, just asking on the census is unlikely to get good data, but that to me is the only drawback. For the record, I am a liberal democrat, since I favor Medicare for all, strong safety nets, free tuition to the best school one can handle, strong worker protections, paid child care / leave and other liberal policies. I just don't favor all that stuff for illegal immigrants. And yes, I would favor a national ID card. This little rag of an SSN card, and the fact that you can never get a new number to recover from ID theft, is ridiculous in an advanced society. The frontier closed 150 years ago. Time for us to grow up.
50
If you don’t favor any of these things for “illegal immigrants,” I’m willing to bet you’d also take a stand against rights for Europeans who came to this continent, wiped out an entire people, and claimed it as their own- right???
1
Ah, Mr Ross, the man who "forgot" about several million in investments, which increased in value by something like $6 million more in the interim can't quite remember why he insisted this was necessary. ( it's a tangent but I cannot help but remind people that when a Presidential appointee, like Wilbur Ross, divests himself of investments, he is not required to pay one penny of tax on any of his profits )
Everything is politics, politics is money,; small people - citizens or not, do not matter in these decisions.
Undocumented immigrants aren't getting any of that "free stuff." They pay taxes but they don't get any of the benefits.
One only needs to read the constitution, particularly, Article XIV (Amendment XIV) Section 2, which clearly delineates who is a citizen (born or naturalized) and that the census enumerates "the whole number of persons in each State," which is a broader definition than citizen. No mention is made with respect to documented or undocumented immigrants and there were undocumented immigrants in the US at that time. One should not be amazed at how the self-described "originalists" and "textualists" are able to twist and turn the constitution to suit their needs.
265
"...and there were undocumented immigrants in the US at that time."
There was no concept of either documented or undocumented immigrants at that time.
8
@Kurfco, women were 'undocumented' at that time, as well as slaves and indians. Should we have counted them? yes, obviously..
1
No. This is why the "undocumented" euphemism is so misleading and unhelpful.
"Undocumented" in the context of what were formally known as illegal immigrants means that they don't have the legal authorization to be in the country. Were slaves, women, and Native Americans here illegally? Did they not have authorization to be in the country? Clearly not. So it's just silly to say that women and slaves were undocumented, in the context of a discussion about unauthorized immigrants.
(Could they not vote? Yes - but that's not the same as being "undocumented" either. Children can't vote. Felons can't vote in many states. Felons and children are not undocumented.)
Don't Americans deserve to know who lives here?
50
@Donna Gray: Sure we do; but your statement is a straw-pony looking for some straw.
The article (and debate) isn't about Counting who is here. It is about the red herring of *insuring* Voting integrity by using the Census as the vehicle.
As you are aware; the majority of our prison population have their voting rights stripped-upon conviction; yet the incarcerated are still counted in the U.S. Census for purposes of apportioning districts; funding and seats in Congress.
Minor children do not vote either (yours or mine); they too- are counted. P
Please understand the debate; and the article.
2
The Census should be designed to encourage everyone to fill it out accurately. There should be no questions that paint a target on anyone's back for whatever reason. The information gathered from the Census then can be used to understand how families, communities, and states fit together to make up the country. No political agenda from the agency administering the Census. None.
125
There is a long list of persons counted by the census for approtionment purposes--not all of which hinge upon one's citizenship. Take for example districts with substantial prisoner populations (2.2 million). Though most prisoners are not eligible to vote while in prison, they are counted for drawing (gerrymandered) district lines.
Add to that children (72 million), and many games can be played based on how different demographics (age, race, religion) have or don't have children. Legal immigrants (22 million) and illegal immigrants (12 million) combine to make an important contribution to the census for some very important reasons: apportionment of road, police, fire, and public health considerations (to name a few).
Under-counting populations results in poor allocation of resources, for which inequities can result in injury, loss or death, no matter the origin, legal, or voting status of individuals.
159
Apples and oranges. Illegal "immigrants" shouldn't be counted, congressional representation shouldn't be allocated to them, any more than for tourists. Criminals and kids are citizens and should be counted. Opposition to including illegal "immigrants" is not based on the fact that they aren't voters. It is based on the fact that they shouldn't be present on US soil.
3
The citizen question has been asked many many times on the federal and even state conducted census'. They aren't asking if you're an illegal immigrant. And frankly they shouldn't be counted anyway. But the citizen question is an important one. How many people are citizens? Citizenship carries privileges and responsibilities and what percentage of people legally immigrants reside here. Many don't seek a path to citizenship, because while they live here it's strictly for economic reasons not to become an American. If you want a dialogue about immigration let's base it on some facts. Other then statistical info the personal data a person gives which is their name address and other asked questions is not made public for 70 years. The 1940 census was released in 2010.
Once again the far left dictating to us and pushing their Open Boarder agenda.
34
As a resident of Queens, you should think harder about your stance. You live in a county full of immigrants and the new census question will result in services cut to QUEENS. Hello?!
2
I'd like to know where you're getting your information regarding illegal's that according to you, "don't seek a path to citizenship, because they live here for economic reasons". You should ask yourself, why would't an illegal WANT to be a citizen, when being a citizen gives them access to "privileges" that are available to ONLY citizens. Why would an illegal (as you call them), not want those things, so they can what.....risk being deported. If they were citizens, they could send more money home (I assume that's what you mean by economic reasons). You argument makes zero sense, in fact if you add up how much working undocumented people pay in taxes, at all levels of government, states, cities, would lose billions of dollars. Lets not forget, that working illegal's will not get any of the benefits that they would get if they were to become citizens.
Based on what I've outlined, remind me again, how the benefits, of NOT being a citizen, outweigh BEING a citizen. If you want to have a fact based discussion, then you need to start WITH facts, the main one being your '"reasons" why they DON'T want to be a citizen. Then back up and realize, that if there was a path to citizenship they would become a citizen. But there is no clear path, the path the Reagan promised when he gave amnesty to 3 million, never happened. Because the GOP needs their monsters, so the light won't be shined on the only one's solely responsible for the state of this union.
https://itep.org/immigration/
2
What would stop them from answering in the affirmative. If this was legitimate that's one thing, but this is a way for Trump, and his goons the GOP to use them to get more votes. What the GOP is afraid of is people of color voting against them, since most people with two brain cells, don't vote against their own interests over and over. The GOP needs their monsters, they need someone to "blame" for their failures at governance.
They need people that they can point to and say, those are the ones that are taking your jobs, they are the ones that collect the most in welfare (they aren't). Or they are here and don't want to be a citizen because it's somehow better NOT to be a citizen. The question on citizenship has nefarious undertones, Trump, and the GOP haven't been able to prove that illegals voted, the courts have struck down every election law written in red states, one judge said an election law was written with "surgical precision".
No democrat has said that they want open borders, what they want is a clear path to citizenship, that is fair and equitable, and that deportation is done humanely.
But until the problems that are driving them from their countries, war, gangs, corruption, is addressed, the migration of peoples won't stop, and certainly a wall, would be a minor inconvenience.
https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-2/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/trafficked-in-america/
The only people threatened by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would be illegal aliens. I think most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL aliens; i.e., foreigners in the US illegally.
It is the dream of almost every poor person in the world to come to here; that is, conservatively, hundreds of millions of people.
We cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. (This was also true during the two terms of President Obama.) It is therefore utterly impossible for US taxpayers to support the millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners (aliens) to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally (i.e., illegal aliens) and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal aliens, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, abuse, etc.
Abolishing ICE makes sense only to advocates of open borders, a policy no nation will ever approve. We will lose the mid-terms and 2020 elections if open borders are part of the Democratic platform.
47
"We will lose the mid-terms...." I can only assume you are a republican. I can almost bet you that republicans will lose the mid-terms with or without sending the parents and their children back to countries where the USA has contributed to the insecurity and destablization.
3
White people are illegal aliens - did the natives ask them to come here? Lots of immigrants to the US are indigenous to this continent, so they have more right to be here than the descendants of European invaders.
7
'Open borders' is a straw argument. (Not least of which is the conspicuous partisan silence from the GOP when the Obama administration increased border restrictions). Border maintenance concerns or comparisons to hypothetical other countries are poor moral justification of mistreatment of individuals from anywhere within our borders. (These are the same type of arguments put forward historically by German/Italian power groups in the 30's).
There are no plans to support those in need as you mention coming from the GOP. ICE has not been suggested in any way as some type of bargaining chip in return for dramatically increasing social services.
4
There is a pervasive pattern here that people seem to be missing: it's a pattern intended to drive out foreign born people out of our country. Legal, not legal. Citizens, not citizens.
I moved to this country in 1978. I was ten years old, white, from a wealthy part of Caracas. We moved to South Jersey and within weeks, I was told I was a "spic", "not white" and undatable and marriageable, which was devastating to my 10-year old self. My English may have been broken, but my heart was fractured beyond repair. (Since married a nice American guy, so nyah, former torturers!) :-)
I thought that heart was well patched, until the day I heard Trump lead a stadium full of people (A STADIUM) boo my ethnicity. I can honestly say it was the first time I have ever felt abject fear.
The illusion that I had relied on to patch my broken heart disintegrated a bit. So I started digging about immigration and what I found scared the beejesuz out of me.
This little beauty of a question in the census is part of a much larger purge intended for people like me. Yeah. Like me.
It involved the unthinkable: taking away the naturalization of people for technicalities. It involves revoking green cards from residents for infractions. It involves deporting people all over America for TECHNICALITIES that should not count. It is all part of the message to people like me: You. Are. Not. Wanted.
To which my response is: Duly. Noted.
25
If one is inclined to judge the collective attitude of 340 million people by the ignoring braying of a few thousand (ok, a “STADIUM”), might one be reasonably accused of a kind of bigotry?
Seriously, has your life in this country been so awful that you would be inclined to view the worst of America (or any country) as representative of the whole?
Final question: What do you mean by “Duly. Noted.”?
Are you leaving? Or are you going to stay and fume and assume the worst of everyone?
4