Honorable judges,
You refer to other countries which is great. When people are massacred by the gun violence, why don't you do the same? Why do you want to pick and choose?
17
What happens if people just don’t answer this question?
11
Here's how to make this aggressively bigoted attack on brown people into a non-issue: don't answer it. Fill out the rest; skip that back-door attempt to intimidate the non-citizens by making us all, effectively, non-citizens.
13
Fantastic---as President Obama averred, "Elections have consequences"
13
Democrats should just skip that question.
8
“But her emails!... She’s not ‘likeable.’...” This is what you get.
12
I have already filled out a census. Am I the only one?
1
The citizenship question can be used to check voting accuracy. The number of votes must be less than or equal to the number of US citizens in a district. Else, voter fraud.
9
The US Census’ original purpose was to serve as the basis to equitably assign representation to the US House of Representatives. The census was concerned with counting citizens! which at that time, was effectively the same as the population in the original States. Everyone living in the US when the Constitution was written was considered a citizen, excepting perhaps foreign diplomats. In colonial times, International travel was limited and expensive. Those arguing against the citizenship question use the term population rather than citizen with the original intent to misdirect readers to believe that both US citizens and non-citizens should be counted. Why should we believe that the Framers of our Constitution intend to have non-citizseens be represented in the House of Representatives? It makes no sense. The Framers never envisioned international travel bringing thousands of annual exchange students, seasonal workers and millions of illegal immigrants evading legal entry or legal travelers illegally overstaying their visas.
Regions that encourage illegal immigrants to reside in their communities should bear the burden of that choice and not seek federal aid to support those here illegally.,
17
Lie.
Lying works for Trump...
9
There is zero doubt that the Republicans on the SC will stand as a block on any question that could give the Republican Party a political advantage. Whether that voting rights, or the census, or for that matter gerrymandering where they will somehow create a test that makes it bad if Democrats do it but fine if it was Republicans. Ever since Bush vs Gore it’s been clear that the Republican SC is in no way a neutral arbiter of anything - they are a hyper partisan group undermining democracy in the US.
10
I plan on answering this question if it is included, and I will add +1 or +2 to make up those noncitizens in my neighborhood and building who are not being counted. More +1s and +2s = more money for my district. They can come and check up to see if I answered correctly -- my +1 and +2 will be out shopping when they come by.
16
NYC needs to come up with an outreach program using people that are trusted in the immigrant communities to make sure that everyone gets counted.
2
Why should illegals have representation in Congress? California's nearly 40 million have 53 representatives. California has a perverse incentive to allow as many illegals to enter to enhance its representation in Congress.
19
If it comes to it, I plan on skipping the citizenship question as both civil disobedience and support for immigrants. This is our “Spartacus” moment!
10
Would be nice to provide a link(s) the basis for Sotomayor's assertion. In my experience some studies do not stand up to scrutiny.
". . . Justice Sonia Sotomayor, . . “There is no doubt that people will respond less,” she said. “That has been proven in study after study.”
Also
Congressional apportionment: For me states such as CA receiving more representatives because of a large illegal immigrant population is a big deal. CA may gain, but other states get the short end.
(Ten million + illegals in the US translates into about 10 congressional seats..... for some states and a loss for others.)
15
If I was undocumented, in the age of the Trump Administration, would I answer a Census question giving them my address? To be honest, NO.
4
Once again, as in the 1999 decision in Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, the conservatives on the Supreme Court appear eager to engineer a census undercount if the undercounted Americans will be minorities.
6
In the urban areas of the country, everyone who gets the census form needs to participate fully. In the rural areas of the country, every Democrat needs to boycott the census. They won't stop gerrymandering their districts so let's shrink the number of their districts.
5
I simply don't trust forecasts produced by Census Bureau employees or by academics. They are trying to predict the unpredictable. Scholars have found that so called "experts" usually are worse forecasters than non experts when it comes to predicting how voters and Americans respond to events, including the addition of questions to the Census survey.
If the left wins this fight, every question on the Census survey can be challenged by partisans.
Then policy makers, academics and businesses will be deprived of critical data that they can use to do their jobs.
The left is so desperate to pad voter rolls with illegal voters that they'll do anything to cheat honest voters and politicians. That is what this fight is all about.
10
The object is to hold down the vote in 2020 so that Republicans will have a better chance of winning the Presidency, the Senate and House. Of course they will control the judiciary for years to come. I recoil at the thought of that happening. We will be, by far, the most regressive major nation on Earth.
4
I will skip this and other questions on the census form. It has steadily become as toxically poison as most other things in our society.
5
So it becomes clearer every day why there was such a strong desire to pack the courts with "conservative" judges going as far as denying Obama his rightful nomination of Merrick Garland. As the country becomes more diverse the fear the establishment has of losing power is becoming more evident every day in their transparent attempts to spin and bend the constitution to fit their desires. The list is already long: Bush v Gore, Citizen's United, overturning key provisions of the voting rights act, the muslim ban and I wouldn't be surprised if they let Trump off the hook with all of his stonewalling of the investigations into his many wrongdoings. Who knows where it will end.
5
It is ironic that the conservative justices cited the citizenship questions in the census forms of foreign countries. Conservative justices including Scalia and Thomas have repeatedly stated that our Supreme Court should not be influenced by how other countries handle legal issues.
10
I would expect no less from this Court. Unfortunately, the rule of law in the U.S. is rapidly becoming history, with party willing to do or say anything as long as they get their way, we no longer have a functional government. The Merrick Garland non- appointment resulting in the appointment of the highly partisan Neil Gorsuch along with the questionable Brett Kavanaugh sealed the deal on Democracy's demise. The Robert's Court will be remembered, but not in a good way.
7
This is clearly aimed at reducing the number of people counted in areas that have historically voted Democratic, and thus reducing the number of seats in Congress and federal funds allocated to those areas. Everyone residing in those areas, and like-minded people across the country, should simply refuse to tick that box.
5
What happens if we leave that question blank?
Better yet - let's all take a think black marker, draw a line through the question, and mark it REDACTED.
12
Read the census law. It is intended to count all residents, legal or illegal. Being illegal -to my recollection - is information that is locked away from all scrutiny for 72 years. Am I wrong??
5
The Constitution is clear on this: the Census counts "Persons" and not citizens.
The supreme Court's final decision on this question will indicate whether it is now a partisan bunch, who will ignore law & justice to favor political power & conservative extremism.
Shame on the supreme Court, for being supremely tainted.
13
My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary And Civil Wars. I will refuse to cooperate with the 2020 census because of the citizenship question. The census is a pathetic joke - none of it matters
2
Now we know why Kavanaugh was appointed.
2
Please: My family dates to the early 18th century in this country, and I am appalled, not to say frightened, at the fascist turn the country is taking!
Can anybody say for certain what might happen if somebody, as a citizen for centuries, simply leaves that question unanswered ?
Will the Trump administration come after me, to arrest me for whatever charges it, and the Kavanaugh (forget Roberts) Court, wants to file? At nearly 80 years of age, do I have anything to fear from this???
7
Doesn't matter that 3 federal courts ruled strongly against Trump & Mr. Magoo. Voter suppression by any & all means is dear to the heart of the conservative--make that extremist--agenda.
5
Red state liberals should boycott the census don’t you think?
10
Curious there are almost no quotes from the conservative justices in the article...it seems more like a story on Kagan's and Sotamayor's joining The Resistance than one on a simple case before the court. I guess the conservative view isn't fit to print.
10
Luckily the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter of the law, not an arm of the Republicans, who are seeking to weaken minority representation. The five honorable conservative men (and they are all honorable men) will doubtless confine their role to "calling balls and strikes" and refuse to go along with the Bannon/Miller partisan effort.
The immaturity displayed in so many comments below is really staggering. Surprise! We live in a sovereign country with defined borders, immigration laws, and citizenship requirements.
So long as our census is tied to congressional districting, representation, and allocation of taxpayer dollars, then illegal aliens...aka ‘Citizens Of Other Countries’...should NOT be included.
This ain’t rocket science, folks.
16
@Michal
Legal residents should count.
4
As long as we are a nation of laws we should follow the constitution which says count EVERYONE regardless of citizenship.
9
Not only does the Constitution call for a count of all "persons" - but the census provisions are in Article I & call for CONGRESS to conduct the census. If the Bureau of the Census / Dept of Commerce entrusted with this task makes changes without CONGRESSIONAL approval, the CONGRESS should decline to accept the results, should have the power to override or demand a new census.
8
As a natural American citizen, I am confused how I should answer this question. It seems the America i was born into, loved and respected virtually my entire life, no longer exists. I’m not sure how I will answer. Probably just skip it, Maybe we should all just skip it.
9
There is no such thing as "illegal immigration" Immigration is the taking of the oath of citizenship. There is a presumption that the legal process to become a citizen was completed with the taking of the oath. Such then, there are no legal immigrants or illegal immigrants, there are just immigrants.
There are those who enter the country by stealth or deception. How would you to like to refer to those persons?
1
Another issue the Supreme Court appears to get right. Why Democrats want to lose the presidency championing the cause of illegal aliens is a conundrum to us Democrats who put Americans, (and winning elections), as our priority.
11
One of the key characteristics of an authoritarian dictatorship is a highly politicized judicial system, where judges follow the dictator's and ruling political party's orders--rather than seriously considering the evidence and rendering a fair-minded decision.
Politics is all, and evidence, truth, and justice have nothing to do with it.
The Republicans are now the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. It is: "Sentence first; verdict afterwards!" and "Off with her head!"
5
In Canada we’ve had differing census policies from different parties in power.
We had the Conservative government designate a longform census as “voluntary”.
The next party, the Liberals, re-instated the longform as mandatory by law. The longform goes to about 25% of the country.
I had to do the long form one year. It felt like an enormous invasion of privacy. There were questions about ancestry and religion, if I recall.
I would never dream of sharing any of that with the government.
The tradition here is to state “Klingon” as religion or ancestry.
6
which may be the case in Canada.... sorry I couldn't resist.
@Bob
I was just joking. Do not call Fox News.
There are no Klingon caravans on the northern border.
1
In the 2010 Census, there was an effort by the far-right to prevent the government from collecting any information that they didn't feel was necessary. This meant that census takers were given "no reply" as a standard answer. Some US residents did not answer at all; others only replied with the number of persons in the household, no names, ages, races, ethnicities, or genders. I wonder if this time, those same people will be offering more information.
1
Wilbur Ross requested the question be added because that is one of the reasons why his rich, unqualified, slippered feet was nominated by Trump and confirmed by McConnell's senate in the first place. All the rest is just "same ole same ole" in the Trump years. The Supreme Court is now just another political arm of Trump. It has nothing to do with fairness or precedent... I have no more trust in our institutions. We have more "acting" heads than heads, by design, because our government slash our country is under attack by the Executive branch.
4
In this case of interpreting the intent of the United States Constitution on the census, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem quite happy to consider what "virtually every other English-speaking country" does.
Wow. I can't wait for these conservative justices to apply this same standard to interpreting the intent of the United States Constitution on the issue of private citizen ownership of firearms.
8
We should expect prosecutions for refusal to comply with the census to resume (after an absence of 50 years) whether the question of citizenship appears on the census or not. Those who do not comply with the census requirements would be labeled criminals if they are convicted. I can think of nothing that would please Trump and his Republican party more than prosecuting aliens, legal or not.
1
Do you smell the stench of party? The current Republican Justices will always try to keep their party in power. That’s why they were appointed. This is their main purpose. This is the core of their faith. No argument can dissuade them. Maintaining Trump party control is the only imperative of that wayward party. Any party member who questions their hegemony is persona non grata.
2
This is unfortunately going to be one of many future nasty decisions made by this highly politicized court.
There will be many more, and we can be sure that as the Republican party slowly dies due to overreach, pure unalloyed cynicism that finally disgusts the electorate, and good old aging and demographics, that much more work will be done using this branch of the government to further what heinous ends they could not achieve using the legislative and executive branches.
1
Unbelievable. The Conservative Judges don't want International Law applied or referred to in the cases they don't like it, but here it's a-ok.
6
Those opposed to us knowing who actually lives here argue from two sides of their mouth.
On the one hand, illegal aliens are more law abiding than the average citizen, yet on the other, they can’t be trusted to tell the truth to the US government.
8
Hitler used the 1933 census to identify Jews, gypsies and other so-called undesirable persons. Unfortunately, IBM assisted Hitler in recording information on these persons. "Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it."
9
Politicize the census, dumbest idea ever. Thanks Republicans, what a mess you've made.
8
Stand strong and tall. Illegals deserve no voting rights nor representation until becoming naturalized
8
This will be a disgraceful decision. It's already clear that the conservative 'justices' will use their Fox 'News" echo chamber opinions to overrule the science of the people who actually know something about creating the census. I look forward to the conservative 'justices' overruling all kinds of science in their all-know-it-all knowledge. Gravity, evolution, climate science can all be over-ruled by conservative 'justices' who are against judicial activism except when they're for it.
5
The census should count the number of citizens and non-citizens. It should not ask about race or ethnicity.
9
If a citizen has nothing to hide, he should not be against the citizenship question. If you are an illegal citizen, maybe it is time to return home and apply for legal status. You should not be here and are breaking our laws.
If a citizenship question is included on the status form, it should be answered truthfully. Of course, it will probably not be by people who have something to hide. This is so dishonest and not fair to the rest of us who do answer honestly.
8
Where is the logic, or precedent, of having non-citizens represented in Congress?
15
Article 1 Section 2: "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."
3
We should boycott this question.
I worked on Census 2000 in Hawai'i and the confusion regarding "ethnicity" was monumental.
Like, I am native Hawaiian, Japanese and Portuguese--does the last mean I am "of Hispanic origin"?
This was fixed I think years later, but I seriously doubt that skipping one question will invalidate your form.
Especially given that the Census has been highly underfunded already by this administration, and the likelihood of getting the required info is zero.
I am guessing if enough people skip the citizenship question they will not have enough data to compile this answer.
Anyone higher in Census experience?
4
Having managed a census crew during the 2010 Census, I can definitely say that asking a question about citizenship will result in an undercount and in many people refusing to participate in the census.
In the last census, we still found elderly people of Japanese descent afraid to answer census questions, because an earlier census was used to help round up Japanese-Americans for internment in 1942.
Some of our census crew worked in areas where there were a lot of Hispanic residents and people would only participate when it was promised that the information would not be shared with immigration or other governmental agencies. People will simply avoid answering the door to census workers, people will refuse to return census questionnaires, will refuse to answer and many will give false information.
If the idea of the census is to get an accurate population count, including a question about citizenship will thwart that goal.
4
So some states want resources and representation to reflect their non-citizen populations? I can see how this can be justified for legal immigrants but regarding illegal immigrants - well, the cities and states should be penalized for not enforcing the law. Shouldn't they?
11
I now know that a "population" does not have a clear (mathematical) definition but simply the result of a census that can differ profoundly due to its way. Interesting!
And where in the constitution does it say questions on race, age, gender, marital status and the dozens of other questions should be included? But they are.
10
@JQGALT
Such questions are used to evaluate the impact of, and otherwise assist in administering, numerous laws and programs. Unless, of course, you want to argue that Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc., are all unconstitutional, or that you don't care whether those programs are achieving their objectives.
An undercount is the goal. That means less money and representation to sanctuary cities and states. When local tax payers have to shoulder a greater part of the financial burden of undocumented immigrants we will see if they like spending their own money as much as they like spending other people's money.
85
@John
Undocumented people are also taxpayers. They give fake SS#s to have taxes deducted. They pay sales tax when they shop, gas tax when they fill up, and property tax indirectly when they pay rent.
So... try another argument.
56
Other people’s money built all those freeways that the large business owners had their employees drive on without tolls. Now those businessmen say that they earned the money and should keep it and not repair the roads when they get worn out. Sometimes it seems like private money when it is really money that should be public if the rich were not manipulating and being unfair.
30
@CKM sales tax? Tourists lost in NYC pay that. And since when is identity theft a plus?
11
If this is their decision, I will simply refuse to answer the question at all. All Americans should do the same.
9
Party over country, party over Constitution and the GOP partisan hacks could care less that Ross lied, repeatedly, to Congress about this obvious partisan play.
But what do we expect, McConnell didn't pack the court for nothing.
8
Maybe Democrats in Red states shouldn't do the census? As an example, If the population of Kentucky is under reported even by 10% it could mean one less GOP thrall of a congressman. Multiply this out amongst a number of states... A shame this is the thought process this has devolved to.
8
Such a shame that the Supreme Court is divided between conservative and liberal and is not an independent court. I want a court that looks at an issue and the law and makes a decision based only on the law and the Constitution and not based personal or political bias.
6
Perhaps it's time to boycott the census.
7
Terrible idea
3
Wilbur Ross, Donald Trump,Stephen Miller ? I can’t help but get the feeling that this is more about “we don’t want immigrants “ than it is about an actual census count. It is also a political move against areas that might have high numbers of immigrants legal or not. Immigration has always been important in this country. With a shrinking birth rate it will continue to be. Social service groups in the past few years have brought in thousands of refugees from all over and placed them In distressed urban areas and small towns where these immigrants have stabilized and revitalized these communities. It looks like another trump move that in the end will not make America great again.
5
The Supreme Court is now becoming nothing more than another authoritarian lever of power for Republican control of government.
And so ends our democracy based upon the rule of law.
6
@Dan
Do the Democrat justices ever break rank on a key court decision? Never. They are in total lock-step.
7
Perhaps this is the moment for a collective "I am Spartcus" response. If there is no downside to checking NO on the citizen question, then lets all stand to rob this question of any meaning.
8
We all know the oft-repeated undercount of illegals (“11 Million”) in the USA, put out by Pew Research.
Finally, with the citizenship question, we may get a better idea of just how many we have... closer to 40 million, I’ll bet. We’ll get a real accurate count once Amnesty is granted to all....
8
Maybe one day trump supporters will be able to admit to themselves that they are not really against illegals - most of whom fix their roofs and clean their toilets,- but they are (despite all their protestations) against the legals - who come here with nothing and then few years later take all the nice paying jobs in business, finance, medicine, and high-tech - and that the real source of all this pro-Trump drama is not racism or tribalism or whatnot, but simple pathetic envy.
6
@cb. Then why are they not so successful in their own countries? Never a straight answer to that. Why do so many Americans have to train them for their jobs under threats of losing severance? Why are so many American techs hired as contract workers to fix the messes made by foreign tech workers? Again, never straight answers to those questions.
3
well-put
People can not be compelled to volunteer themselves as low hanging fruit for I.C.E..
3
Will there also be a requirement to pledge allegiance to “Dear Leader” Trump?
6
The refusal of large numbers of citizens to answer the question will not only be a form of resistance, it will also provide cover and reassurance to non-citizens so that they too can refuse to answer the question. This is every citizen's chance to stand shoulder to shoulder with immigrants.
6
Read up.
"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."
4
Why can’t the census do two things at once— determine the total number of people occupying space in the USA AND simultaneously give us a head count as to how many of those people occupying space in the US are citizens? I’m a Moderate OhIo Democrat. Our party is going to hand Trump another term in about 19 months if we don’t get out head out of our —-
17
@Trevor winters
Whether it can do those two things at once is an empirical, scientific question. Most experts who have studied the question believe it cannot, as discussed here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/22/four-pinocchio-claim-center-census-citizenship-question
2
Unfortunately our party is apparently going down that road. Your vote in Ohio counts; my protest vote as an unaffiliated voter in CA doesn’t. I really hope your party leadership gets the memo in time.
4
If the Supreme's decide to allow the citizenship question, Democratic candidates need to add a new campaign pledge, to demand Congress authorize a second census, probably 2022, to replace the results of the flawed 2020 effort.
6
McConnell stacked the court for a reason.
The time has come for them to fulfill their obligations to the Party.
7
And to the country at large to enforce law and uphold citizens rights
1
Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling on this matter I will not be answering this question. Let them wonder.
5
Since the addition of the Citizenship Question seems inevitable at this point, then what needs to happen is a well publicized boycott not of the Census, but of the Citizenship Question itself.
They'll have to deport us all if we all say "I am Spartacus."
4
This discussion reminds me that, in 2000, my family including my two at the time teenage children, decided we’d answer the question about race “Human”. It was a tiny little bit of rebellion. I was a little anxious we’d get in trouble, but nobody contacted us and I assume our form was counted. The administration’s stated rationale behind this citizenship question is transparently bogus. I’m dismayed that the SCOTUS is leaning towards keeping it.
4
For all of you who don’t approve that the United States government makes a distinction between American citizens and non-citizens, including the over 20 million here illegally.....why don’t you leave?
Clearly, citizenship in a sovereign country just ain’t your cup of tea.
17
Conservative justices placing UN recommendations over the US constitution. What a strange time to be alive!
4
Please stop referring to the 5 as "conservatives". They've overturned too much precedent and too many statutory laws to be"conservative." The most factual, undeniable adjective is "Republican-appointed". Time to start using it.
8
The census counts ALL people, and thus should stop asking about people’s sex.
5
@DRS
The census was established to determine representation in Congress based on the population of US CITIZENS, not non-citizens or illegals.
1
States containing "Sanctuary Cities" get extra representatives and Electoral College votes as a result of their criminal policies.
18
@Andrew Popper Bingo.....which is exactly why they are so against the question.......so much for fairness that they are always spouting..... they want Federal tax money and representation based upon a population that is present in the country illegally according to Federal law...talk about perverse......
6
Why not simply add a question of if they are part of the republican nationalist party and call it a day. That’s what this is truly about.
5
Why should citizens of Mexico and Central American countries be counted in the US census?
18
Maybe it's been said, but a normal government would ask those who manage the census what they think about this, and if an accurate census is the highest priority, they would likely reply to exclude the citizenship question. My suggestion is to boycott the citizenship question if the Supreme Court decides it's lawful to include. Wouldn't it be great if most people refused to answer that question.
2
Green card holders pay taxes, own homes, have families, etc. So why differentiate them? For conservative substitute Trump yes men! Note the "men"!
3
@Barbara And what about the millions here illegally inflating the population and thus funding and representation from the federal government??????
5
Obviously you are missing the entire thrust of the article and conversation. Green Card holders are of legal status.
5
If every eligible voter voted, we wouldn't be in this mess. We wouldn't have Trump and we wouldn't have Kavanaugh.
6
Oh sweet irony. Democrats are going to boycott the census because it’s xenophobic, dealing a double whammy to the population count of their district, and resulting in more Republican seats after redistricting.
Wake up everybody! Boycotting the census will do you no good. Encourage any illegal aliens you know to complete it as well. Stand and be counted.
8
I thought that one of “conservatives” main tenets was that government should be limited.
So how the heck do they do the mental gymnastics to come around to thinking the citizen question is okay when it clearly is “peering into peoples’ lives” unnecessarily.
So, conservatives on the Supreme Court — are you in fact conservatives? Or just political hacks/Trumpians?
3
The conservative justices' intentional obtuseness in their line of questioning and misapprehension of answers deserves serious reproach. If these weren't smart people they would seem idiotic. Since they are smart their apparent obtuseness is obviously aimed at an agenda. They are unconscionable.
5
Sooo...how about we all leave that question blank? Will they throw us in jail?
3
The census was intended to count the citizens in this country to determine how the various representatives of the house would be assigned to the states to represent their citizens at a time when there was no illegal alien problem.
Our forefathers are rolling in their graves watching this spectacle.
The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting what the forefathers intended. It's a no-brainer.
9
Non-citizens who work here whether legal or not pay taxes. Taxation needs representation. Remember where we came from about that.
6
what percent of illegals pay taxes?
2
Adding a citizenship question does not alter the census count. It would be informative to know the number of citizens, permanent residents, students and others. The danger for illegals is, law enforcement agencies can quickly identify them by eliminating all legal residents by cross checking with databases. All illegals has to do is move to a new address after census count. Adding a citizenship question is no harm to anyone.
44
Sheer nonsense. “All illegals can just move to a different address”? All 20 million plus? Moreover there isn’t the manpower to “cross check databases” nor would it pass constitutional muster.
How is this a “Times Pick®️”?
60
@Kodali:
I hope that's sarcasm, . . . but suspect it's fatuity.
29
@Kodali Precisely what I would want to do, fill out a census form knowing that I now have to pack up and move. Trivial really...
44
What would happen if those asked in the census declined to provide their gender? Would the absence of a response invalidate the census? Does the question regarding gender inquire about birth gender? or self-identified gender? Does it matter to the data base that we rely on as the census? Ditto for the race question. How should we answer the race question?
2
Interesting how comparisons with other countries becomes important when it is convenient but ignored when it is not
Many countries have health care far superior to ours; but these are different countries; many include a citizenship question in the census; so we should too.
8
I don't think I'll supply any information at all. I have complete distrust at this point of the government and the purposes to which the information will be used.
6
Many families that contain undocumented immigrants also contain US citizens. This question on the census could also mean that US citizens living in these mixed documented status families will not fill out the Census forms. I am concerned that we will severly undercount these vulnerable citizens.
2
This is not what the founding fathers wanted, so they are only caring out Trump's orders.
So instead of three independent sections of the government now we have two.
Most governments want to know who is in their country. It seems very odd that the current government of the United States doesn't seem to care.
16
Since the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court said that, "corporations are people," will corporations be counted on the census?
8
Today’s questions by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh reflect exactly how so many of people perceived they would. Regardless of your particular politics, the saddest thing is there will never—ever—regardless of issue or principal—be any reason to think that these two gentlemen will ever opine in opposition to the views of the Federalist Society. They would be well served by examining the career—especially the chronology of opinions—of Justice John Paul Stevens.
It is interesting to note that Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican (President Ford) and at the time (1975) Stevens was a well-known and highly regarded Republican. As such, Stevens came onto the Court as a conservative yet, by the end of his career, he was widely considered to have been on the liberal side of the Court. After he retired in 2010, he was asked about this liberal label. He denied it, saying his views softened over the years but that they were balanced, the result of considering so many cases and observing the effects of those cases. One example: he came onto the Court believing in the death penalty and left the bench adamantly opposed to it. It is difficult to imagine that that either Justice Gorsuch or Justice Kavanaugh would ever come to this conclusion. But, perhaps time will tell.
2
If only we had a body that was respected, non political, and above reproach for its reasoning to decide such cases. Apparently the framers forgot to provide for such a body, and Mitch McConnell thought political hacks would do just fine.
3
I, too, understand the unsavory motives and unfavorable consequences of adding the citizenship question. However, I can't see how it can be considered unconstitutional to ask it, so long as no person is barred from or penalized for truthfully answering the questionnaire. Good faith policy would dictate omitting it, but, as is so often the case, bad faith policy is legally permissible.
7
@RGRobins
There are laws in addition to the Constitution that must be obeyed, most notably the Administrative Procedures Act.
@RGRobins
The very same question was asked on the US census for a century.
2
@Toni
And then it was dropped, probably for good reasons. In any event, it is now approaching 2020. and the issue is whether such a question would work today, not whether it worked a century ago. Most experts within the Census Bureau and elsewhere think not. In any event, no such question should be added without extensive pretesting, which of course has not been done.
Wait, so now those justices opposed to questioning the manner (or validity) of the administration’s efforts to add a question of citizenship are looking to other developed countries for guidance?
Will they please do the same with the health insurance industry in this country?
5
Replace the citizenship question with, "Have you or anyone in your family benefited from lax enforcement of US immigration laws?"
10
@Gerald,
Or add the question: “have any of your ancestors benefited from slavery?”
Strict constitutionalists... when it's convenient.
9
@Lisa, you mean like Obamacare is a tax.
3
Russia interfered in our country to inflame race hatred and undermine our society. Here we are debating a policy bypassing congress by the executive branch. This added question is totally partisan to create more divisive culture wars.
Mueller Report
Vol1 Pg13
The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.
Vol1 pg21
More commonly, the IRA created accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. organizations and grassroots groups and used these accounts to pose as anti-immigration groups, Tea Party activists, Black Lives Matter protestors, and other U.S. social and political activists.
Vol1 pg23
Facebook groups active during the 2016 campaign covered a range of political issues and included purported conservative
Vol1 pg24
groups (with names such as “Being Patriotic,” “Stop All Immigrants,” “Secured Borders,” and “Tea Party News”), purported Black social justice groups (“Black Matters,” “Blacktivist,” and “Don’t Shoot Us”), LGBTQ groups (“LGBT United”), and religious groups (“United Muslims of America”). Throughout 2016, IRA accounts published an increasing number of materials supporting the Trump Campaign and opposing the Clinton Campaign.
2
Everyone should skip the citizenship question. I will as a protest!
1
Can't wait to see how Mr. Originalist Clarence Thomas votes on this, with the plain language of the Constitution staring him in the face.
6
The census is used by everybody for everything: businesses, nonprofits, religious organizations, schools...in addition to government. We are a data-driven society and the census is a goldmine, a huge service the government supplies to all.
An undercount degrades the quality of this data.
143
@D
Actually, census data is used extensively by private researchers, economists, and businesses making relocation and marketing decisions, not just the government.
As for government uses, god forbid we should have an accurate population count so we know (1) how many roads needs to built so people can commute safely, (2) whether public utilities are adequate to meet peoples' needs, or (3) how to prepare for catastrophic emergencies (or "simple" things like epidemics), to name only a few.
11
@Mary C
Yes. A lot of data comes from the census which can be used for a multitude of reasons. But, there was only one reason for the census and that was to draw Congressional districts based on population proportions.
So, do you think that non-citizens deserve Congressional representation, even if they can't vote?
All of the other data that you cite has no bearing on the historic, and constitutional, basis for the census. It is just a thinly veiled attempt by Democrats to pack the House of Representatives.
5
@MaryC
A citizenship question increases the quality of the data, more than any undercount.
2
Whatever helps Republicans that's what our rightwing Supreme Court will do.
6
Such a petty conundrum.......people are people and need to be counted. Gone are the days of "3/5 of a person" and "'Indians' not taxed."
Let's move into the 21st Century and count who lives where, period. Every Homo Sapiens who lives within our boundaries is a countable person. We don't need to know if the individual is a citizen or on life support; whether dark or light; whether a temporary renter or a permanent home-owner; whether citizen or working toward citizenship next year or four years later. They are all people. We count people.
I wish we'd scrub the race question. Who cares? Does it matter?
2
Every weeks it seems the Supreme Court dies a bit more, and more. Truly nonsensical decisions, albeit disguised a bit, like Citizen’s United have degenerated to the Travel Ban and this —a decision worthy no more than a bad joke.
This court is no more as it has no moral authority —it is now only a kowtowing bureaucracy.
Mr. Trump should abolish it and save some tax dollars. We would all be better off without this kowtowing chorus.
1
Census is about total population, not only total citizens.
148
@WV
What percentage of the total population are citizens?
9
@WV
I do not think the concept of illegal immigration existed when the Constitution was written so it says that Congressional representation should be allocated to states according to their populations. Today we have laws on immigration. People who are here illegally should not be counted for the matter of awarding congressional seats.
Giving more congressional seats to states with large illegal populations means that the citizens in those states get more of a say in national politics than do citizens in states with small illegal populations. This goes against our sense of fairness in which one person should get only one vote.
9
@Toni There are already other sources/methods in place to compute that percentage. We don't need to ask on the Census. For example, check out the percentages posted here (state by state) by the Kaiser Family Foundation (nonprofit and non-partisan):
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-citizenship-status/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
So this is another reason why we don't need to ask the question on the Census, because the percentage of residents who are citizens is already available. Really, the question is just a political ploy by the administration to ensure that sanctuary states and cities get less federal money.
6
Trump himself has hired scores of undocumented workers at his luxury resorts and golf courses.
The hypocrisy of this president knows no bounds. Hopefully at least one conservative justice will see through this con job.
4
This is a catastrophe for this country if the Supreme court votes to allow for the citizenship question. Too many people in this country are already disenfranchised, and people who are not citizens and hold a green card like myself for many years until I became a citizen 15 years ago would not get the help they need. Healthcare, school subsidies, food, transportation, loans for college etc....this is ridiculous. We are a country of immigrants. Too many people are scared of this administration already. This would make matters worse. They think that it would help suppress the vote, which is the dream of all these old Republican geezers. They don't realize that their effort is hurting people's daily lives. The way this administration is brainwashing its base and persuading them that immigrants are bad people. I am an immigrant. I came here 40 years ago. I am not a bad person and I don't understand why this administration is hurting people so badly. Shame on them!
3
I’m not sure about the Constitutional issue but I don’t think the Republicans can cheat their way into power forever. There just aren’t enough of them and the US isn’t S Africa under apartheid.
3
Your analogy is patently offensive. The legal or constitutional question isn’t the only things you’re unsure of.
5
Just don’t answer the question.
5
@Robert M. Koretsky
excellent idea as a peaceful protest. What happens though if the majority does not answer?
1
Knowing the current admin just lie about the statistic
"Justice Kavanaugh also discussed international trends. “The United Nations recommends that countries ask a citizenship question on the census,” he said. “And a number of other countries do it. Spain, Germany, Canada, Australia, Ireland and Mexico ask a citizenship question.”"
Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to interpret questions based on the U.S. Constitution?
Justice Budweiser seems to be confused.
11
The United Nations recommends that countries ask a citizenship question on the census.
And a number of other countries do it
12
Problem is they won’t answer. Then the millions of illegals hold back which affects many types of funding
1
There should be no surprise here.
White males and females voted in the majority for Trump, in no small measure to keep America white
Make America Great Again is not just about industrial might, but about re-embracing our racist past.
The voters who stayed home thinking Democrats and Republicans are the same, or voted for Trump as an act of defiance to the system helped Trump change the court to have a lasting impact to America
Trump may not get re-elected but his courts will be here for many decades. And if he is re-elected then the courts will swing even further to the right.
We are a new and different nation. No longer e pluribus unum. Now it will be alba tantum.
2
@Blue
How do you know the race and gender of those who voted for Trump?
6
The good news is courts can be altered in size
Nearly every day there is a story that illustrates just how badly Bernie bros, African-Americans, Women, etc., destroyed our country by not voting vs. Trump. I am a (relatively) rich, white male who did, in fact, donate and vote, and I must admit I have little or no sympathy for the victims of this administration. Elections have consequences. Who would have thought?
6
You also live in a reliably blue state, and are part of the corporatist donor class the DNC apparatchiks depend on without offering anything of substance in return. Look how well that worked out and against whom.
6
Encourage everyone to reply to the 2020 census and push back on blunt and cynical attempts to suppress representation in the House and other federal and state programs tied to full and complete census data. Also, push back on the likes of Sec of Commerce Wilbur Ross who patently lied about how the citizenship question was added to the 2020 census and his disengenuous explanation of why it is again needed after 50 plus years. And push back on the likes of Associate Justice Gorsuch who is showing a real fondness for rationalizing from the Supreme Court bench the lies and the liars like Wilbur Ross and DJT.
@Rob D It would be hilarious and a civic duty for millions to refuse to answer citizenship questions, were there to be such an invasion of privacy in 2020.
Real progressives refuse to answer race questions, also. Every time I need to check "race" I check "refuse to answer." Then, I found on a physician's notes, "refuse to answer" followed by (white.) I did not tell the doctor, receptionist, or nurse that I'm white. What the.......?
1
“Race questions”? Placed there by “real progressives”.
3
@Levon S Please explain when and why race questions were placed by progressives.....
While in college I worked on the 1990 census. I was both a field worker and office. If you did not fill out the form the census people come to the address and try to talk to someone to determine how many live there. I was the one sent out to the tough cases. It was kind of fun but there were a few extra tough cases, except 1, I managed to get everyone counted. There are definitely some interesting characters in the world and it was actually fun. I literally had to gain their trust to help them fill the form out. I may need to be a census worker again to make sure every one in my area gets counted.
4
If census data is used in any way to benefit one party directly, it should not include illegal immigrants.
13
@AACNY
Is that what the Constitution says? (Spoiler alert: it isn't.)
5
The Republican Supreme Court is united on ANYTHING that will keep the GOP in power, ANYTHING.
4
@Impedimentus
Good thing you law-abiding Democrats want to stack the SCOTUS next time you get the chance, huh...
8
If the religious extremists in robes allow this criminal attempt to suppress the census to go forward we need a nationwide commitment to have everyone who loves the United States ignore the question.
The US Constitution is very clear. Count EVERYONE. If they meant citizens, they would have said citizens.
3
Care to explain the phrase “religious extremists”? Three justices are Jewish, five are Roman Catholics and one is an Episcopalian by way of Catholicism.
3
Let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces. For those of us who are on the left who live in blue states, please answer the census questions. Otherwise, we'll be playing into their hands . Oh, by the way, we can only win at the ballot box. Get active, join a club, move from your comfort zone and knock on a neighbor's door and get the vote out Don't be that guy or gal who just watched what's left of our democracy vanish.
2
When push comes to shove, the law and reason are irrelevant. With the conservatives, it's about power and money.
182
@J
And yet the question ultimately involves the power and money Democrat jurisdictions will receive for encouraging and enabling illegal immigration.
That is why Democrats oppose census integrity.
16
That this comment/opinion is a “Times Pick” gives me pause for thought.
12
@EGD Laughable, census is to count total people not just citizens. Sorry.
12
Unless the Chief Justice comes through on this, it may mark only the first of many, many travesties that will damage our country for decades to come.
2
What happens if I leave it blank? What happens if we all leave it blank.
4
I am a Democrat but I think voting districts should be drawn based on the population of people eligible to vote. It just seems wrong to base numbers of representatives on the population of non-voting and possibly illegal people present in a district.
15
@Alexandra Hamilton Sorry, I disagree. There are millions of children under the age of 18 who cannot vote, but who occupy space in our schools, our homes, our playgrounds. So do adults occupy space, even when homebound, imprisoned, and disinterested--possibly no longer interested in voting or eligible. They are real people, age 1 day to age 118 years....count them all, regardless of voter eligibility.
4
@Alexandra Hamilton
If that's what you believe, you are perfectly free to advocate for a constitutional amendment to make it happen. However, the courts are obliged to interpret the Constitution as it now stands.
1
states should NOT get representation based on population but on citizens.
That is logical, clear and constitutional.
13
@Joe Yoh
If it is constitutional, I am sure you can point to just where in the Constitution it says this.
2
@Joe Yoh The Constitution excludes only “Indians not taxed”. Do you have a reader’s block?
2
Is there some way to do passive resistance to this? If Roberts or someone else on the courts doesn't awaken to the injustice of adding this question can millions of people just refuse to respond? Can we sufficiently disrupt an illegitimate census so that it needs to be redone? I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't want to just go along with this farce.
Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh need to go back and take Honesty 101 and Logic 101. The citizenship question has not been on the census form since Harry Truman was president. Moreover, doing something in the 1930s is not justification for doing it now. Poll taxes and Jim Crow laws were in force in the 1930s as well.
6
It's ridiculous that this issue is before the Supreme Court and that lower courts ruled against the administration because they thought Ross was being disingenuous with his stated rationale. Regardless of the rationale, it is an eminently reasonable and appropriate question to be asked of all those who seek to be counted. As indicated at the Supreme Court argument, the citizenship question had appeared in prior census forms and is similarly asked in other countries' census forms. The lawsuit is a blatant political ploy.
11
@AMH
Even if everything you say is true, the whole point is to get reliable information. That is an empirical, scientific question, and what you or I or anyone else considers "reasonable" has nothing to do with it. That is why such changes should only be made after careful design, expert input, and pretesting, and the failure to do so in this case almost surely violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and perhaps other laws as well.
The potential damage to American business from a poorly designed census was discussed here just a day or so:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/us-census-2020.html
2
Just to be clear, there is no "conservative" wing of the court. It is a Republican wing. The divide on the court has more to do with politics than it has to do with ideology. The current make up of the court was engineered by an illegitimate executive and a non-democratic Senate that chose to violate established norms for dealing with nominations. Going forward, the court, the Senate and the country will have to change to accommodate demographic changes in which populations have shifted to urban areas (with less congressional representation) and away from rural areas (with disproportionately high political representation). In the future, we will either have a democracy governed by the rule of law, or we will not have a country.
4
Racism is racism. It is incredible from reading the comments that some people think it’s ok to ask that question
Was it ok that the Jewish people had to wear a yellow star to identify that they were Jews? Is it ok to put children in cages?
How much of our civizatiom has to be eroded before we wake up.
Only a fool doesn’t recognize what this hater is doing. The Supreme Court newest member is a drunk the court who went after young woman I thought that was horrific but disturbed people voted him onto the court.
We are going to stand with our brown brothers and sisters. Enough is enough. The Jim Crow days are over.
4
This isn’t Jim Crow or the holocaust. Cheaply trading on mass genocide or racist laws of the past convinces nobody of what exactly your take is, or why this added question is a bad idea or unnecessary, only your reflexive, childish outrage.
7
And due to Biden, we have Clarence Thomas on the Court.
2
@Inge There is nothing wrong with diversity.
5
Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court has nothing to do with diversity unless you think stupid people should be represented on the SC. Bush didn't care about Thomas's brain. He only cared about his knee jerk conservatism along with the appearance of diversity in Thomas's skin color.
Thomas is yet another example of, regardless of skin color, if your life shows you to have no respect for women, the likelihood is that you have no respect for most other differences in people. Thomas is one miserable human being.
Trump Executive Order of 1/25/2017, which says the 1974 privacy act shall apply only to "citizens" or green card holders, ...could... allow ICE to use census data as an aid to arrests and deportations. The census was used to locate and lock up Japanese US citizens in WW2. MAGA?
Unless, of course, the Republican SCOTUS judges decide Trump's orders are illegal.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united-states/
1
The title suggests the conservatives are “united”. Doesn’t that mean the liberals are “united”?
9
Republicans seem neither to understand nor respect the Constitution. For them it is a self serving tool. Use it when it helps your agenda; ignore it when it doesn't. Look no further than McConnell, Trump, NRA, et al.
5
So all these "originalists" are only originalists when it suits them. They're nothing but political hacks and they should be ashamed.
Every person means every person. Or maybe not.
4
@concerned The proposed question in no way prevents someone from being counted except perhaps in cases of illegal behavior or presence by the respondent.....Trump is way ahead of you
Flat out political ploy that defiles our Constitution.
1
the citizenship question was on the census a hundred years ago and it meant that people had to get around it, especially with stricter laws that stigmatized them. I'm thinking of my Sicilian grandparents and how only my grandfather, after fifty years, became a citizen. Citizenship is not a criteria for counting the number of people. We should carry out that open catalog of people residing and not predicate their presence on whether or not they are citizens. Stupid question!
Well, Kavanaugh had to thank trump somehow. More gifts to come.
5
A few commentors have advocated lying ( a federal offense) and a few have advocated not answering which would result in less funding or representation. All dumb moves but even more frightening is that some advocate more lawlessness and subjugating to protect illegals.That shows just how much illegal immigration has disrupted our system and how we are turning into re countries they left.
10
@Hellen
Do you mean like countries where the chief executive officer and his henchmen blatently lie to the legislature, where the courts ignore the plain language of the constitution and where the people's money is simply redistributed to a band of oligarchs with foreign connections? Because that's what we've got right now.
1
The ONLY reason Republicans and conservatives are pushing this issue is to give themselves an
advantage in elections by frightening anyone who is not blue-eyed and blond. That is the only reason. It’s the usual GOP corruption.
2
House subpoenas being ignored today will make it to this same Court.
Yet another corrupted arm of government.
The GOP are very good at stealing elections.
They have so many ways.
2
Sorry if this has been asked already, but what is to prevent everyone from “unintentionally” checking the box saying they are citizens?
3
5 years and a fine.
With Trump filling the courts, odds on a Trump judge are very high.
The Trump judge won't be politically correct about sentencing.
3
Of course they are united... These are Heritage Foundation goals being considered by Heritage Foundation justices.
2
A major problem with the argument about "What's wrong
with asking about citizenship?" isn't the question itself, but the intentions of who is doing the asking. Having conducted a bogus, nationwide search for election fraud, conservative Republicans have engendered deep mistrust of their motives--disenfranchisement--among their political opponents.
Justice Gorscuch's argument that cabinet secretaries have wide power to deal with their agencies, and others, is on its face correct. However, it seems naive and little dumb in its trust of Secretary Ross's motivations. Since I doubt very much that Justice Gorsuch is naive or unintelligent, this leads me to the conclusion that he doesn't care about the Republican party's anti-democratic efforts at voter suppression.
In other words, the fix is in, and he can be viewed as voting the Republican line, regardless of facts.
2
Well, it seems pretty clear that Justice Roberts is going to go down the rabbit hole with the other Republican Conservative Justices and skunk America’s cities, her most populous states and ultimately all of America’s businesses that depend upon the census for estimating the amount of everything they have to order and produce. This decision is being made on a political basis, not on the basis of “law” or of “Constitutional meaning,” since that document clearly states that “persons” are to be counted. It says nothing about citizenship standing.
As a consequence, every large city and state will be undercounted for federal purposes until the next census in 2030 because once again Conservatives cannot read the Constitution’s clear language and because they are determined to maintain political control for smaller population states which are generally majority white. Roberts doesn’t care about the “reputation of the Court” on this issue because clearly he believes it is small potatoes.
What is it about Conservatives who seem to always be on the wrong side of history and against the thrust of the American Constitution which by and large encourages inclusion and power for more people as the nation moves into the Future? You could almost say that they weren’t patriotic.
1
This is what we will get, for 25 years now or more, every ruling that either helps the rich, white males, or the Republican party. That's it, why even bother to insist on experienced judges for the SC, might as well simply put politicians on the court and get it over with.
5
There is absolutely nothing wrong with including a citizenship question on the census. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear by responding to the question. The only people who have a right to be upset are the illegals and since they have already (often) broken our country's laws just by being here, they really shouldn't suddenly be surprised or offended by admitting to their illegal presence. Selective "righteous indignation" means nothing.
11
Completely agree.
And presidents under investigation who are not guilty should testify in person and under oath, right?
2
A Supreme Court applying a modern interpretation to constitutional language.
Who’s the strict constitutionalist now?
2
Power grab by Republicans on par with the stolen Supreme Court Justice and Gerrymandering. The Supreme Court is a partisan institution now, plain and simple. When the Democrats come back to power, the simple solution is to increase the number of justices to make it a Democratic court, and undo as much of this trail of anti-democratic moves as possible. To accomplish this, we need to get out the vote - and while we are knocking on doors, get out the census and make sure people understand they can just leave that question unanswered.
2
Gee, ya think? The GOP is so far ahead of the so-called opposition party, strategically, that it will take generations to reverse the damage. And that’s the best case scenario. Sad!!!
The liberal argument is that the question can't be asked because people won't follow the law.
13
If this court is going to rubber-stamp activities of the Trump administration, then let's start calling it the Trump/Roberts court. I'm sure Roberts won't mind.
3
For an undocumented person answering the Citizenship Question truthfully amounts to self-incrimination. Even non-citizens in the USA are protected from self-proving guilt by the 5th Amendment.
That is what "nor [shall an State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." means. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the Equal Protection clause applies to Federal laws as well as state laws.
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW is the motto above the Court entrance, not a matter of the political preferences of individual justices.
{Perhaps the Conservative justices always use the back entrance.}
3
There seems to be concerns in this comment feed about undercounts in blues state such as California and New York. But also reddish and conservative-leaning swing states such as Texas, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia will also be negatively impacted by this logic as well. Why aren’t they protesting?
2
Why aren’t they protesting? Because they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
@Annabelle In the United States, which is a representative democracy, almost all policy is set by representatives elected within voting districts, except for (extremely rare) direct popular referendum in a few states, and certain local elections. This census question is designed to reduce representation apportioned to urban democratic districts relative to mostly rural republican districts. It works by undercounting the populations of those specific districts to (further) reduce the value of all votes made in left leaning districts so that that each vote is worth less than a vote made in a right leaning district, thereby increasing the power of republican politicians on both a state and national level. That's why they aren't protesting.
The Conservatives care only about political power and will use the census citizen question to improperly
reduce Democratic representation in Congress and reduce Federal aid to big blue states. Their Conservative Judges will once again prove how partisan and truly undemocratic they are.
This augurs poorly for fairness and equality in our increasingly diverse and multicultural society.
If you look at the language in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, it stipulates that a Census Enumeration must be conducted every ten years. However, nothing prevents Congress for ordering a National Cenuse to take place with greater frequency. The Census could be conducted every Half-Decade (5 years), and would yield valuable information which would more than pay for itself. Indeed, there is nothing prohibiting a Congress from providing for the possibility of conducting the U.S. Census on annual basis. Folks could receive a Tax Credit for doing so. In that spirit, the Democrats, if the keep control of the House, and win the White House, ought to have a new Census run in 2021, which would supercede the results of the Trump/Ross Census. There would be no questions about Citizenship status, but I do propose incorporating questions that would form a basic Census of gun ownership: Who owns firearms, how many, etc. That would actually allow policy makers to glean some important information. Such questions would do nothing to infringe on the right to bear arms, but if a few million 2nd Amendment fanatics would be disinclined to participate in the Census, that would be just too bad.
1
Of course, the real motivation is to manipulate the census to further skew elections to favor Republicans. The base can deny it, maybe they don’t get the math behind it, but this is just one more piece of the larger strategy to secure power and insulate the party from fair elections.
1
Yes, it will help the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It helps the republicans accomplish more efficient gerrymandering. There isn’t an honest individual in this entire administration.
4
It’s important for everyone who can to completely fill out the census and ensure you are counted as a citizen, as this will effect your representation in Congress. It’s unfortunate- and a calculated political move- that the citizenship question may be added, because it will only serve to “punish” states with larger illegal populations.
To those that are leaning towards not responding to the census at all, please reconsider and respond, but just refuse to respond to questions you don't feel comfortable answering (whether it be race, income, citizenship, etc.). It is quite common to have large numbers of refusals to questions about income, for example, in any survey. Census yields very important data that is used for redistricting among other government functions, such as distribution of federal funding. Don't cut off your nose just to spite your face!
1
Presumably the census form asks for information on race and gender. Why not citizen and residency status?
7
I recommend, as a form of civil disobedience, that everyone state on the census form that they are NOT a citizen! Let the Trump Administration work it out.
@Andrew Wohl
Declaring ourselves not citizens is shooting ourselves in the foot.
For the purpose of the census, ***everyone needs to declare themselves citizens*** thus nullifying the intended effect.
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers ..
There is no mention of whether the Numbers are citizens or not, just numbers. So, the citizenship question should not be part of the census. I’m not a lawyer, but wouldn’t that make the question unconstitutional?
2
Just for clarification, how exactly is the question worded?
Is it a Yes/No question asking if someone is a citizen?
Or does it ask a person's status and offer multiple response (i.e. citizen, permanent resident, undocumented, etc.)?
The wording of the question could impact the actual frequency/accuracy of the responses.
3
@John
Related question: Has any of this even been pre-tested? I've seen reports that the answer is negative.
We should stop asking what the Court will do on important questions. It's a conservative Court. it will be, into the foreseeable future, for decades to come, because Trump entered the White House. Whatever liberals / independents / progressives would like to see, the GOP owns this Court and the country is headed in a dramatically different direction. That's the reality.
7
@Joe the reality is nothing matters anymore so we just won't listen to the courts. Illegitimate SCOTUS!
1
I’ve had the same address in the USA for more than 20 years. I file my taxes and renew my passport but I haven’t ever seen a census form or census taker ever in that time.
I believe I last filled out a census form as a college student in an apartment in 1990.
If the census can’t count me, it’s missing many citizens and none citizens alike already without the interference from Trump and Wilbur Ross.
6
If non-citizens are deterred from responding to the Census, particularly in CA, they will be similarly de-motivated from (illegally) voting. That 3 million edge Hillary had in the 2016 popular vote? You won’t see that again.
28
@Richard please prove it happened. plus it will be even bigger in 2020. there were two non popular people on the ballots in 2016, this time there will only be one. last time a lot of people didn't like either choice and stayed home, on both sides. I was one of them.
8
@Richard - This kind of ignorance is terrifying.
16
@Richard
Ridiculous. Just because you tell yourself that doesn't make it true. Ever.
You have no proof of election fraud, you have no proof that the undocumented voted. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because Americans voted for her more than they did Trump.
15
"The Supreme Court’s conservative majority "
This should be "The Supreme Court’s Republican majority ". There is no reason to call Republicans conservatives, and the Supreme Court is no different from other parts of our government in that it too is polarized and partisan.
22
@Dave And of course, we have the "Supreme Court's liberal minority" which is simply the Supreme Courts Democratic minority. If one were to reverse majority and minority, you'd have no issue with any of this. The leftist minority is an even stronger bloc than the conservative majority. You'll occasionally find Roberts and Alito taking an independent position. The last time someone on the left notably took a non-left position was Breyer in Bush v. Gore.
13
@Mike C.
I agree that both are partisan and should be reported as such. The big change is that Republicans are now far from conservatives. Today they have completely transformed into Trump partisans and Trump has no concept of conservatism or any other principled political philosophy. Democrats have a better claim to being liberals but even they should be referred to as Democrats, not liberals or progressives.
1
@Dave
Or the Supreme Court's Catholic majority, hence its hyper-conservative tilt.
1
At what point do we move from “Are you a citizen?” to “Show me your papers”? Perhaps during Trump’s second term in office.
17
@DJ. Ever been stopped for a traffic violation or boarded a plane or opened a checking account? Sorry but knowing who is who and weeding out the fruads is part of belonging to a modern society. Where do you live?
5
"Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, has said he ordered the citizenship question to be added solely in response to a December 2017 request from the Justice Department, which said data about citizenship would help it enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965."
A great point to argue before the "court" that gutted the Voting Rights Act.
You can always count on these gangsters for a daily laugh.
4
Horrible, horrible. Now we have to listen to Trump gloat.
2
The intent of the question is known to be a desire to reduce the counting of certain portions of the population. If Democrats in 2030 were to pose a question asking people to list the gun they own then Republicans would claim that was designed to under count their supporters.
5
At least we can rest easy with the knowledge that Trump's picks for the Supreme Court are doing their duty: Empowering old white men for as long as humanly possible.
19
@Jim Dennis And how are the respective governments of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala empowering their young citizens?
10
The only people who might feel threatened by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would be undocumented immigrants and, of course, politicians seeking illegal votes.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants; i.e., foreigners in the US illegally. We cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. It is thus impossible for US taxpayers to support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally (i.e., undocumented immigrants) 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 undocumented immigrants, 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, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
Failing to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census makes no sense. Open borders is a policy no nation will ever approve. We will lose the 2020 elections if open borders are part of the Democratic platform.
201
@Mon Ray - Nobody is in favor of "Open Border" Policy. Nobody. And there is no such thing, either. Anywhere.
Please don't fall into this trap.
194
@Mon Ray - You've missed the crux of the issue here.
If they ask this question on the census, people who are not citizens simply will not respond to the census. The results will therefore be grossly inaccurate, defeating the purpose of the census.
You're also wrong on almost every other point you made in your post, but they're not even worth arguing about when you haven't acknowledged the real issue with this question being on the census.
91
@Kal Al
The census is to determine the number of citizens in an area so they can be represented and services allocated to serve them. By deliberately miscalculating the census, it might explain why cities with large illegal immigrants also have huge homeless population mostly composed of citizens. The homeless citizen wasn’t served because the locals were to busy taking their benefits.
4
SCOTUS is now just another sleazy political machine. the GOP senate is enabling a corrosion of democracy. and the presidency is in the hands of a corrupt narcissist. and none of them give a fig for that old piece of paper we call the constitution. It is all a sham.
Looks like the Trump Supreme Court will do as they have been told by Don the Con.
2
Don't let anyone fool you. This and several other articles from reputable media, assert that you will be counted even if you don't answer any question except the number of people in your house. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/19/603629576/skipping-the-2020-census-citizenship-question-youll-still-be-counted
1
Want to reduce undercounting? Count only heads, as the Constitution mandates.
The 2010 form and forms from preceding decades are long and invasive, and about a lot more than just the number of people living within our borders. Sex, birthdate, race, dwelling (apartment, house, mobile home), telephone number.... Policy justifications for larding the census with these questions paved the way for the citizenship question.
Are you Chicano, Asian Indian, Guamanian, “Negro”, Mexican, .... Uncle Sam wants to know all that and much, much more.
https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questionnaire_Info.pdf
2
Suddenly, all the freedom fighters of the left have become “originalists” on this very particular issue. Is it so difficult to understand that notions such as citizenship and immigration have evolved in the last two hundred and forty years, here and in the rest of the world ?
Let’s cut to the chase, all of these high minded arguments are about illegal immigrants. The left does not even want to admit it, but supports open borders (hence, no “illegal” immigrants, but merely “undocumented”). Why don’t you just state your purpose clearly and see how it fares in elections, instead of pretending that unrestricted immigration is a “human right” and citizens can’t vote on regulating it.
10
Yes, and let’s be equally honest that the originalists want to cherrypick what the framers meant when it suits their aims.
3
I understand that some people think electoral votes should be allocated based on a national majority of voters. But I don’t understand those who think the electoral college should include non citizens in its weighting system. That is ludicrous and is really tantamount to negation of citizenship.
6
I heard on National Public Radio this morning while driving to work that the question regarding citizenship was part of the Census up until 1950. The begging question for me is "Why was it removed then?"
America in 1950 was not a nation daunted by political correctness as it is now. In fact, it seems to me that when the immigration laws were reformed in 1965, removing the barriers to Asian and Southern and Eastern European immigration in the 1920s, that Americans would have wanted to know the nationality of the people flocking to the US.
Now more than ever that question needs to be asked, especially when liberals call for diversity. And let's say the question does make it on the Census, what will the penalty for not answering it? I don't remember having to sign a Census form verifying that the information I provided was true. So how is the USG going to be able to come after non-citizens?
This is a non-issue, another non-issue, a red flag to keep out attention way from the things that matter most. Making America Great Again! Thank you.
3
Maybe Democrats in Red States should "forget" to turn the form back in as an act of civil disobedience. Sure their states would lose federal dollars, but it's not as though they expanded Medicaid or anything. Democratic representation in Congress from those states is heavily diluted already through partisan gerrymandering.
1
Great point. As A citizen from the heartland, you clearly see there are no brown people in the red states, right?
1
For this decadal Census (2020), statistical models are developed (by/for the Census Bureau) to assess error of their population count. Data derived from the annual American Community Survey, an annual statistically representative survey of 3.5 million households includes a citizenship question. Demographic/population shift information is then enumerated and is incorporated into the models. The decadal Census is then used, in part, to validate the models.
Much ado about nothing.
3
@RiHo08
Thanks for the insights.
Which is used to apportion Congressional seats, funding, etc., the actual Census results or the statistical model which incorporates the ACS?
1
@John. "Which is used to apportion Congressional seats..."
The decadal Census.
The ACS is a data source to assess trends over 10 years and help build models. Disparity between ACS and the decadal Census prompts further inquiry and model testing.
1
I look at the group photo of the Supreme Court and am reminded of which political party placed Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Bret Kavanaugh on the court. With the exception of John Roberts, these are not admirable jurists; they are ideologues. And chosen for that reason.
It's disheartening to see the eroding effects of Republicanism in our society.
2
Maybe I'm missing something, but why can't the responder just leave that question blank? Does the entire form get thrown out if every single question is not answered?
2
Under Title 13 of the U.S. Code, you can be fined up to $100 for refusing to complete a census form and $500 for answering questions falsely. ... For all that, a Census Bureau FAQ on the subject of the American Community Survey (PDF) concedes the following: The Census Bureau is not a prosecuting agency.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/03/can-you-get-in-trouble-for-not-filling-out-your-census-form.html
Perhaps history can be a guide to who gets counted. In the Old Testament book of Numbers the Lord directed the message of Numbers toward the younger generation, children of the former slaves who escaped through the Red Sea. Anyone there in their midst who was just passing through was I’m sure welcome in that count as well.
I plan on not answering the question. If everybody did that, the question would be useless.
3
Assuming the administration prevails, the next test will be if states can apportion Congressional Districts based on potential legal voters rather than just “whole persons,” whether legally residing or not. As of now, there is no prohibition for states to apportion Congressional Districts this way, nor conversely are they required to do so.
1
Of course the Conservs are united. They are ideologues hiding in a mask of textualism. With their pedantic air and flowery legal prose they can fool us, making us think their decisions are pure objective legal analysis. 45 years in the law business taught me otherwise. Rarely did I misread what a judge was going to do, just from his or her political leanings. Hate to be so jaded. But look at all the 5-4 decisions. Hopefully Roberts can see the forest from the trees and swing his vote.
1
Did he actually say "trading off information and accuracy"?! Information with accuracy isn't information. It is deception.
1
The white supremacist justices on SCOTUS will inevitably agree to the political game demanded by Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Mick Mulvaney and the rest of their Tea Party to intimidate respondents using the US Census.
Respondents, in turn, should unite to show their antipathy toward this xenophobia.
All Americans who are not white supremacists should show their solidarity with Hispanic refugees, by refusing to answer the Trump xenophobia question on the census, while complying with the rest of the census requirements.
In that manner, the census takers will be able to ascertain and report as to whether the US, in 2020, has a majority composed of white supremacists.
The people that check or don't check this this "Trump MAGA Citizen" box will let us know.
I love the way the Liberal Democrats pick and choose information to support their agenda. For health care they site "every modern first world industrialized country has a national health care system provided by tax payer dollars" So therefor the US should follow. What we don't hear, though, is the argument about those same countries allowing illegal entrants into their countries at will and if they are there not counting them in a census because it would be politically incorrect and would stigmatize them and we wouldn't want that.
I don't know why they should be wary of answering the question,after all when the Democrats win the White House in 2020 all illegals will be given the keys to the vault. Free health care, free education, welfare payments if they choose not to work, drivers licenses, the right to vote, and the big one....automatic citizenship. It is going to be wonderful...just hang in there a little while longer.
6
If fewer non-citizens respond to the census, so be it. Non-citizens should not be considered for all things that citizens are entitled to, including government representation, so this is long past due considering how many illegal aliens are being harbored here now.
I live in a sanctuary city, and if it means less funds for us because the population of citizens is smaller than the population of everybody, I say GREAT! It's about time!
I'm aware that I won a fantastic prize simply being born a US citizen, and I'm not going to be like those lottery winners who foolishly give away and lose all their winnings.
4
A deliberate and transparent attempt to undermine small D democratic participation by reducing representation and funding in districts that tend to be Democratic, and to reduce the vote in such districts. Part of the campaign to prevent non-Republicans from voting. As a side payment, renders the data much less reliable for academic purposes. Of course the current admin. doesn't want to enforce voting rights; it wants to minimize voting. Efforts to reduce polling places and polling hours, and to challenge the credentials of poor and nonwhite citizens were widely observed in recent elections. We also have every reason to think census information would immediately and improperly be available to other govt. agencies, ex. immigration. This administration is rounding people up inside the country, and deporting people without hearings, even without establishing the correct country of origin. Medical facilities have begun asking the citizenship of people calling for appointments. Of course this question will reduce census participation! People with friends, family members and contacts with expired visas or other paper problems are at risk already; this isn't a theoretical problem.
1
Words matter, and the purpose of the census is to "provide a head count of everyone in the nation." This is not really a question of "citizenship," which is defined as "the position or status of being a citizen of a particular country."
What the Constitution appears to be asking for is a simple head count to answer the important question of how many people are residing in the U.S. at the time of census taking, which is used to allocate federal funding to states, among a lot of other things.
But we are in the age of Republican white identity politics--which is about the only thing Trump and the Republicans are counting on to get re-elected. Okay, they gave a tax cut to the rich but they are doing nothing to improve the lot of the majority of people in this country, and they are doing actual damage to clean air, water, the environment, and foreign relations.
Wilbur Ross and the GOP are demanding the census question for purely political reasons, which actually run counter to the issue of allocating federal resources fairly to states and running fair elections in every jurisdiction.
Keep electing Republicans to office, and the status of citizenship will eventually revert to white, male, property owners--just the way Trump and the GOP intend to function.
2
It is my understanding that the number of House Representatives a state gets is based on the census. So, should non-citizens determine that number? That's about 27 million. States like New York, New Jersey, and California have the highest percentages, ten percent or more. Montana has one percent. The seven states with only one representative won't lose them. But what about the states with only two or three? The House number is fixed. A large part of those Twenty-seven million could mean that the states with only two or three could lose one or more representatives to those with a large percentage of non-citizens. So, is that what we want? It makes since for California and New York etc. But for states like Nebraska, New Hampshire and West Virginia, maybe not.
3
The article does not point out that there is the Title 13 law passed by Congress that specifies that the least intrusive method possible should be used to gather census information. Specifically, statistical sampling should be used instead of adding questions to the census questionnaire whenever feasible. Ross has clearly violated this law, and the Census Bureau staffers themselves confirmed that in the case record. So if this court rules for the administration, they are violating the constitution in another way - the supremacy of congress in setting policy.
3
The Supreme Court is not a independent check and balance if the Senate leader McConnell is allowed to delay considerations of nominees and stack the court with Republican partisans. That is not OK, and as an American I reject the legitimacy of the current Supreme Court.
7
Perhaps we can agree to a great compromise, where we count non-citizens as 3/5 of a person. I seem to recall us doing that before and it ending rather well.
1
@Matt Please stop comparing the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans to that of illegal immigrants. It is insulting, shows an ignorance of American history and shows illegal immigrants have no argument of their own to stand on.
3
I am an immigrant and a naturalized citizen, I don’t see any harm in asking this question. One can say no or chose not to answer it. I do not understand though why would federal grant be tied to number of citizens for any public work. If you have more people then you do need more infrastructure, citizens or not.
3
@VS
One of the reasons infrastructure is deteriorating is due to an unnatural population surge through illegal immigration. Which has led to an increase in a shadow economy that does not pay federal taxes. Time for this to end and it will when state can no longer get funds for citizens of foreign nations.
1
@Hellen
If infrastructure is deteriorating due to immigrants, which seems a stretch as they do not make significant change in population by any means, then stop immigration. How is stopping money for infrastructure going to help with that.
1
Trump's administration will use the citizenship identification as means of locating non citizens; following next will be a visit by BP or ICE. Identitätskarte bitte?
It's not out of the question that this Court will allow all his to go forward.
4
@JS If this happens, who will pick the strawberries, clean the chickens, pork and beef, tend to wineries, build and roof our homes, clean Trump's gold toilets, milk our cows, pick our eggs, harvest our vegetables and much much more?
The courts are intrusive about the individuals citizen status but the president can hide all his tax returns from public view????
2
I just don't get it. Bill Clinton said there was an issue. Both Bush's said there was an issue. Hilary Clinton said it was an issue. Barack Obama said there was an issue. The Border Patrol says there is an issue. ICE says there is an issue. The city of Yuma, Arizona, says there is an issue. The country of Mexico says there is an issue. San Diego says there is an issue. Is your hatred of Donald Trump and the Republicans so strong that you are willing to let the country be overrun by unknown people, to the tune of 100,000 per month? A the expense of the United States middle class? Because those are the jobs that will be taken. Why hire a Journeyman Electrician, Plumber, Carpenter, Roofer, Equipment Operator, Concrete Finisher, etc., when a guy will do it for $13/hour with no benefits, no health insurance, no liability insurance, or anything else? Those guys getting displaced are your neighbors. What about the housing issues? Having that many people flooding in is only going to make the demand higher and the rents go up, but I guess that's OK because it will make Trump look bad. What about the schools? California used to be first among graduating students testing. It's way down the list now, because the schools are getting overcrowded with English as Second Language students become the majority. Yet pay no state or local income taxes . It isn't sustainable. But there is no issue, right?
9
There are plenty of non-citizens who are here legally, participate in our society legally, and yet as a result of this new question may be chilled from participating in this census. Per the Constitution’s express language, ALL “persons” regardless of citizenship status or national origin must be counted, and any question that is likely to result in a substantial undercount should be excluded-particularly one with a purpose about which Wilbur Ross felt it necessary to LIE.
2
@BorisRoberts Yes. Whatever DJT is for, I am against and vice versa.
Can I ask the obvious question here? How many illegal aliens actually participate in the US Census? My hunch is it's a very, very low percentage - probably in the low single digits. So, this really amounts to nothing other than a dog whistle for Trump's hate crowd. I don't approve of illegal immigration, so don't try twisting my words - I just see Trump & Co. as the cancer that is eroding this country's democracy and fomenting unnecessary division.
4
I just don't get it. Bill Clinton said there was an issue. Both Bush's said there was an issue. Hilary Clinton said it was an issue. Barack Obama said there was an issue. The Border Patrol says there is an issue. ICE says there is an issue. The city of Yuma, Arizona, says there is an issue. The country of Mexico says there is an issue. San Diego says there is an issue. Is your hatred of Donald Trump and the Republicans so strong that you are willing to let the country be overrun by unknown people, to the tune of 100,000 per month? A the expense of the United States middle class? Because those are the jobs that will be taken. Why hire a Journeyman Electrician, Plumber, Carpenter, Roofer, Equipment Operator, Concrete Finisher, etc., when a guy will do it for $13/hour with no benefits, no health insurance, no liability insurance, or anything else? Those guys getting displaced are your neighbors. What about the housing issues? Having that many people flooding in is only going to make the demand higher and the rents go up, but I guess that's OK because it will make Trump look bad. What about the schools? California used to be first among graduating students testing. It's way down the list now, because the schools are getting overcrowded with English as Second Language students become the majority. Yet pay no state or local income taxes . It isn't sustainable. But there is no issue, right?
3
Scan all credit card/mortgage applications. Citizenship count can be arrived at. There are plenty other ways to count citizens
2
I refuse.
1
That’s not a good idea. So many election line and funds are part of the census impact.
1
Well, count me out.
Another reason why letting millions of illegal immigrants into the country was and is government malpractice
10
There are 22 to 28 million illegals in the US. These illegals will not take the census generally and more unlikely with a citizenship question.
Even the birther babies of illegals may not. The birther baby clause of the United States Constitution needs to be eliminated. It is outdated and destructive.
9
@Neil. If these states were to stop receiving funding for llegals you may see Congress make changes. The law was for former slaves, not illegals.
5
States don’t get aid for illegals. The California illegals are largely using every service in medical care, aid and education but that’s on California. The census determines a lot about funding. Those who don’t take it hurt us. They don’t care and less with the immigration status question
2
Since Trump and party are liars I recommend simply lying. Why be honest with dishonest people.
5
Is there any data that supports the proposition that legal immigrants would be fearful of answering the citizenship question? As the spouse of an immigrant who lived here for decades before opting for citizenship, he never hesitated to acknowledge his legal immigrant status. Legal is legal.
6
@EdMer I am a long time “legal” immigrant with permanent resident status, married to an American, with American born children. I have to say I have participated in every census here since my parents noted me in the 1960 census. They died in this country as permanent residents. I checked the proposed wording of the question and I feel it is meant to be a way to deny legal immigrants rights and obligations once they get to us. I see news stories lately where “permanent” is NOT something we can depend on any more. The prevailing feeling in the government is ANTI—any sort of immigrant and they don’t bother about going through the legal process to protect the people who HAVE played by the rules. I may be one of those people who just skips this question and submits the rest of the form, given the way the question appears to be worded. There is NO representation of my-and your spouse’s- status for us to indicate. At least they’d count us that way. This is one of the Civic obligations I undertook as an adult-to cooperate with the Census. Apparently some Americans
can’t even be bothered to vote—participation there is one of the lowest in any democracy in the world. Go figure.....
1
Perhaps in the future, if a Democrat is President when the census, a question on gun ownership can be added.
7
Areas will miss out on funding because illegals, 22 million to 28 million will mostly not take the census. Therefore the statistics will shortchange States. The great State of California is suffering with overloaded illegal immigration and Governor Newsom sanctuary cities and is under siege from Trump and company. It’s awful.
2
Supreme Court appears ready to bless GOP’s political manipulation of the census
3
Let's hope it means Republican states like Texas lose Congressional representation.
3
California has been overrun by undocumented immigrants - our public schools are overcrowded and under-resourced, our hospital emergency rooms are packed with illegally present foreign nationals seeking tax-payer-funded healthcare and our congressional representatives are increasingly being held hostage by trans-national interest groups who view the concept of sovereignty with disdain. We need to know who the interlopers are and who the citizens are.
9
@Rennata Wilson
By law, census information does not identify respondents, so the census would not be a method "to know who the interlopers are and who the citizens are." Names of respondents and basic information are made public 80 years after the decennial census, so in 2020 you can find out where your grandparents lived in 1940. Maybe they weren't citizens...
2
John Roberts is now making a fool of himself. He said there are no Republican or Democratic judges. Guess what? The SCOTUS belongs to the Republican Party and Donald Trump. I will trust no cases or the results of that court.
5
We know that this administration would use the data regarding citizenship status to terrorize people; I do not wish to be complicit in their disgusting actions.
3
It should be quite obvious to all that the faction formerly known as the Democratic Party is no longer capable of discerning the difference between American citizens and illegal aliens. And these are the same people who are fighting tooth and nail to take control of our government and asset allocation?
8
We will watch the so called textualists ignore the plain text. At this point the court is a joke.
3
If you’re afraid to answer questions on a census you probably shouldn’t be here
11
The GOP did it again: Supreme Court is nicely rigged. Evil always wins, doesn't it?
1
Just another horrible thing that will need to be undone once Trump has left office. The list is growing so big it's heart breaking.
1
I think this is a fantastic idea. Let’s also add literacy tests and poll taxes too. Oh, and since voting is a privilege and not a right....
At this point, it isn’t Trump that is to blame for his morally reprehensible and blatantly illegal actions and campaign promises. The gods knew what they were doing when they gave Pandora that box...and you can’t blame a blind person for walking into a wall, but as of this moment it is insulting and simply wrong to call those conservatives supporting Trump’s racist, illegal, backwards, and totalitarian policies members of the Republican Party. Fascists? Bigots? Hypocrites? Enablers? Take your pick but Republicans exist in the American democratic system of government and anyone supporting the current administration has left Democracy Stadium and taken their toys to Dictator Arena.
5
So the Supreme Court ignores the constitution, we can all ignore the question so they can get their count. There’s no rule you have to answer all the questions, for instance, no one needs to know anything about my sex or heritage. Census=number, that’s what the constitution says, that’s all we have to do. The Supreme Court cons Trump places are not the greatest legal minds out there, they are partisan hacks.
2
This question presents the “original intent” justices with the opportunity to show just how full of it they actually are. The language was put in the document when slaves were counted. So how does that fit with the arguments of those who want the new question? It fits perfectly because they are in essence the same people who wanted slaves counted.
1
Come one, come all I say. There's room. Don't illegal immigrants understand that they'll remain in "the shadows" if they don't go through the process legally? It's interesting to me that so many want the freedoms provided but technically don't even trust the government, or respect the process or Americans at large. Their comfortability with this limbo shouldn't impede the goings on of people willing to abide the system. It is definitely easier than El Salvadorian murder...Not saying it's cake either.
1
Just how far will the Republican party go to suppress the vote and re-write the Constitution? Apparently, they will go as far as it will take to ensure their continued power mongering, no matter the damage.
Congress should subpoena six years of Trump and every Cabinet member’s taxes, especially Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross; let’s call out what is really at work - a turn towards Kleptocracy.
Let us see just how big the take has been while they have participated in the largest fire sale in United States history. Movie studios for sanctions relief, Saudi Arabia? What do you say Russia, a tower for a country?
3
This is the end result of both Republicans and Democrats running their games by dividing up the electorate by identity politics and encouraging intra-national conflict: blacks, whites, hispanics, men, women, trans, gay, lesbian, impoverished, poor, middle class, upper class, rich, ulta-rich, oligarchs, very religious, religious, sorta-religious, new-age, atheist, agnostics, industrialists, environmentalists, activists, warmakers, peacemakers, young, midle-aged, elderly, Jews, Muslims, Christians, rural, urban). The party's appealed to various combinations of the of the above as the preferred method of building power. So now both parties have strongly adhered constituencies but there is no constituency for the nation.
This is all by design. By encouraging the people to fight against one another, no one noticed the oligarchs and their congressional functionaries setting up a national infrastructure to siphon wealth upwards to the very top while keeping everyone else struggling. This went on for 40 years.
Now that the Republicans have become the unveiled face of the oligarchs, the battle is on. It's a war now over marginal tax rates via the proxy armies in the Senate and House. It's that simple.
2
I don't understand why states that allow or encourage illegal immigration should be rewarded with additional federal funds and representation in congress?
9
I believe it will have the opposite effect: the great state of Texas, and the great states of California and Florida, will all potentially have less representation in Congress due to the fact that we have a lot of illegals.
There are only a few states where the unauthorized immigrant population exceeds about 3% of the population. They tend to be places with big agricultural and/or hospitality (i.e. hotels and tourist attraction) sectors, like California and Texas. The Pew Research Center site is a good source of information on this question. https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/unauthorized-immigration/
As Pew and many others have recorded, unauthorized immigration has been declining for at least a decade. Republicans are good at fighting the last war. There is little reason for Democrats to panic along with them.
4
@Professor M
3% is 3% too many. It isn't "unauthorized" immigration, it's illegal immigration.
1
Trying to figure out how many citizens live in the USA. What a concept. Who could actually be against this?
6
@Hank Undocumented foreign nationals and their advocates.
Like with global population exploding to the verge of world destruction it really matters our feeble attempts to count ourselves? Putting things into perspective is not something an intelligent person really wants to do for it’s hardly very flattering.
Republicans are known for treating equality as a 2 tier concept. If you give them this ammunition they will use it to abuse the rights of immigrants who aren't yet citizens and the states who have more of their numbers. It's a recipe for inaccuracy.
1
I have been a US citizen say 64years now (born here) and I may or may not choose to answer that particular question. hey if we can have some one as crooked as trump living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave; with never being held accountable, why should the rest of us worry. Guess I can pull a semi-trump who answered 30+ questions from Mueller with "I don't recall" and " don't remember"(best memory he claims), by just saying I didn't see the question when answering. my bad!!
4
If you think illegal immigrants should be factored into the US census, which is used to determine delegate count and spending, then you might as well factor in the entire world population. Either method will give you useless results, defeating the purpose of the census altogether.
3
you may be more correct than you realize. within 10 years hundreds of millions of illegal immigrants would sneak into this country if they are able to. plus global warming is now a reason to seek asylum in the United States.
I'm wondering if there shouldn't be a question to identify problem-drinkers. Would Kavanaugh check the "yes" box?
3
So, just don't answer the citizenship question. Would that unanswered question invalidate the entire form for an individual?
Or maybe we all--en masse--leave that question blank--imagine, millions of us!--until Trump releases his tax returns.
5
Don't really understand the controversy with this.
If you're a citizen, great, mark yes.
If you're a legal permanent resident, great, mark no.
If you're an illegal alien, great, lie and mark yes. After all, you've already lied to get in and to work here, what's the difference whether you lie again on a census form.
Again, do not understand the controversy.
5
Even if Trump is impeached/voted out the damage has already been done... It's going to take decades to undue the damage wrought by this president
5
Jack T is correct. Too many opinionated people haven't read the Constitution. And, our conservative justices have forgotten the definition of "justice": Impartial, equitable, fair, egalitarian, objective, nonpartisan.
3
If there is a citizenship question on my census form, I will return it marked “unacceptable.”
1
They can know my address and how many are in my home. They can ask if I am Black or Native American but somehow asking if I am a citizen is outrageous.
This push to protect illegal immigrants is just going to create a bigger backlash.
7
Ask the question. Don't ask the question. Answer the question or don't. No matter. The census will be done and the agencies dependent upon the data will go merrily about their business.
Each census comes up against any number of objections and protests. People refuse to answer questions they don't like. They rant and rave and yet the census gets done and every needy private institution and government department eagerly awaits the first roll out and then the first revision and then the next revision and then after a few more revisions it is time for the next census.
And so it goes. Answer the questions.
1
The obvious point of adding the question is to purposely undercount population in states that don't tend to vote Republican, thereby reducing both their apportioned representation in the House and federal funds apportioned by population to those states. That Justice Gorsuch sees no bad faith in Mr. Ross' contrived pretext to add the citizenship question only indicates his patent inability to understand the concept of bad faith. Moreover, the move by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas to bar all pretrial fact-gathering clearly indicates that accuracy is not one of their considerations here. The Court's reactionaries are loath to let facts interfere in the process of arriving at their preferred conclusions. Perhaps if a compromise was offered by the plaintiffs to allow the Federal Government to count all non-citizens as 3/5th's of a person for the purposes of representation and fund sharing the Court's Constitutional originalists might agree. It's would be a position fully in line with their principals and historical precedent.
2
I am surprised by how few comments even mention the Administrative Procedures Act, which has clearly been violated. Even if asking the question is constitutional, it must be done in accordance with the APA, just as every other executive branch action that is otherwise constitutional must comply with the APA.
3
Political judges, making political decisions, at the direction of their political patrons. Reason ignored, the law ignored, the actual text of the constitution ignored. This court has lost all legitimacy.
4
I dislike having a question on citizenship on the census form. On the other hand, it's hard from a constitutional point of view to say they can't do it just because some non-citizens will not complete the form for fear of being deported. The good guys are going to lose this battle, but there's still a lot of arrows left in the quiver to bring Democracy and decency back to our country.
2
If this article is correct, then the only time that the US Census requested a respondent's citizenship was in 1950. No census, from 1790 thru 1940 ever did.
It makes perfect sense that in the wake of massive refugee movements and American casualties following WWII, aggregate, non-personally-identifiable information would have been valuable. The likelihood that the US Government under Truman -- the one that desegregated the military -- was going to use it to identify neighborhoods, or individuals for deportation was nil.
The likelihood that the US Government under Trump -- the one who tried to ban all Muslims -- would use this demographic information to protect people who fear race-based voter suppression is nil.
1
As an ex-Census employee, I can say this is a terrible idea. If you want accurate data (which translates into money for communities), you need people who aren't afraid to answer the government that has questions. Period. I sure hope Justice Beer understands that, but unlikely.
5
So now its politically incorrect to know the number of actual citizens living in the country?
This question was asked in previous census takings and then was omitted. When it was legally asked previously, what laws have been changed to make asking the question illegal? My understanding is no laws were changed and that the "legality" of the question is not really the issue.
And if congressional districts are determined by the number of citizens within it, not the total population, dont we need to know the # of citizens to get Congressional representation correct?
6
Everybody has a right to be counted.
No one is disputing that
But if someone dodges answering the inquiry,
that person has no one to blame but himself/herself.
If he/she wants to be counted,
he/she needs to stand up and be counted,
and to answer the inquiry.
If he/she wants to skip answering the citizenship question,
then he/she can skip it.
3
I suggest that this be an "Optional" question, or leave it out entirely. If this question stands, questions of which elections one votes in are acceptable since we have established only citizens can vote and have identified them in the Census. Perhaps, even, which party one votes for in primaries.
Then the Republican "Black Helicopters" will start flying.
After all, the Constitution does not require this question, a grifter in the Trump cabinet does.
3
So now the behavior of Mitch McConnell, everyone who welcomed the help of Russia in interfering in the 2016 elections, and a GOP that cares only for its own entitlements comes home to roost. SCOTUS becomes more suspect daily, especially given the monetary and electoral consequences of this question.
Putting a thumb on the scale of Justice results in unequal scales for our society.
4
I don't really understand why the question about citizenship is controversial or why it would depress the census participation...
4
House Democrats should defund the census if it includes the citizenship question. It is better to have no census than to have an inaccurate census that tilts political power and federal dollars to sparsely populated rural districts.
1
The original reason for the census was to count every person - not every citizen. Two of my Canadian friends have lived in the States (green cards) for 20 years, paying taxes etc, but are not citizens. Voter fraud, despite what Trump says (more lies!), is tiny, while voter suppression (mainly of non-white democratic-leaning communities- check the facts) is huge. If the goal really is to ensure voting accuracy - then dealing with voter suppression would be the primary goal. As for race and ethnicity- many NGO’s and outreach programs depend on those numbers to apply for grants and explain inequalities in society. Hardly an invasive or “offensive” question. (I am SO tired of people being offended all the time. I’m a middle aged woman and I prefer to get through life without being righteously offended whenever someone says something I don’t agree with. Save the “offense” for the things that actually are offensive in a meaningful way.)
2
Justice Kavanaugh is correct that he United Nations recommends asking about citizenship in a census questionnaire. I am curious to know the rationale behind this.
1
I lean democrat and liberal, but even I can see being able to ask on a census whether someone is a citizen of course something that government should be allowed to do.
4
In what way does the citizenship question enable the government to serve us better? The only result I can envision is sn undercount.
2
When even someone like Cher tweets we need to take care of citizens first you know this will be a close call. If the citizenship question is upheld then states like NY, NJ, CA ...will actually have to cater to the needs of their citizens. What a game changer that would be. It may even stop the massive flight of citizens. Either way things are going to have to change. The states are losing so many legal working citizens that they are inventing user fees to try and make up the difference.
Losing this battle would mean losing more funding which would mean more money grabs from citizens which would mean more citizens leaving. What will sanctuary states do?
3
We are required to answer.
However, the president demonstrates that
the response may be something other than truth.
2
The current Supreme Court is an illegitimate body and does not represent the nation. The balance of the court is due to a stolen seat. If nothing else, this is clear justification for the peaceful overthrow of this government and instituting one that is truly of and by the people, and not subject to outsized powers due to Electoral Colleges or gerrymandered districts.
2
The report of the oral argument shows a lot of discussion about everything but the actual language of the Constitution requiring a census. There is no, repeat no language concerning citizenship in that sacred document—It calls for an actual enumeration of those present—
Apparently, plain text and original intent are only a useful doctrine for the alleged conservatives when it assists in the desired outcome—
1
I'm curious to know how many of the people living in this country are not citizens, and the census seems like a good way to find out. The idea that ignorance will lead to a better outcome doesn't sound right to me. I don't advocate counting only citizens - we should count all the citizens, and all the non-citizens. Just so we know.
3
Of course the conservative justices are united. And as usual, they are united in taking an ideological rather than a constitutional view of the question. The decision will be cloaked in the usual blather about originalism. And it will be wrong, harmful to democracy, help the Republican Party (as it is absolutely intended to do), and decried by historians present and future. Every day, our democracy is hemorrhaging, and these men are sitting back with their bourbon and cigars, pretending they have made judicious decisions. They have not.
2
@Deborah. In this case, it is the liberals who are arguing originalism.
@David
Aptly. The conservatives blather about it but it is entirely disingenuous.
Since the Census Bureau is not interested in fulfilling its Constitutional responsibility to count all people, I won't be too interested in accuracy either. Perhaps I'll add 8 or 10 people to the count living at my house.
2
The last 5 Census directors, from administrations of both parties, all testified that adding this question will make the Census less accurate, and that citizenship data can be obtained from other surveys the Census Bureau conducts.
Census data is not used just by the government. It is also heavily relied upon by social science researchers and businesses. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't get an accurate count of how many people exactly are in each area.
1
If the question is added, the only remedy is to educate people to fill out the census forms regardless of citizenship status.
1
The US census is a great thing. So many of us have been able to use Ancestry or some other means to discover our individual heritage. The question of citizenship has been asked many times in census past and was not such a political issue. Now in 2019 as an extreme political issue, there are those on one side of the politics that don't want the question asked but America needs to know who is here and how many are here.
1
Good. So far.
No good reason not to allow the citizenship question.
But we'll see what actually happens.
Including the details.
For far too long,
the liberals have obssessed about "impacts", etc.
If the law passed by Congress allows the question,
the Supreme Court ought to allow it.
That is the question for the Court:
What does the law passed by Congress allow?
Citizenship is fundamental.
Citizen status ought to be disclosed.
Most other countries --
even "advanced" countries --
to not hesitate to ask citizenship status,
as well as legal status in general.
While "persons" is the basic status for the Census "enumeration',
the U.S. census has long since delved into all sorts of questions,
that have always been allowed:
Questions about household relationships,
questions about household member income,
questions about household member employement,
questions about household member education,
questions about household home applicances,
etc. etc.
Citizenship status is far more "legitimate" inquiry
than all those other questions,
which have been allowed for years.
As for allocation of seats in the HR and electoral votes,
nothing is preventing people from answering the question.
If people want "rights",
they need to stand up and be counted.
9
Regardless of intentions, that different sides can endlessly debate, the citizenship question will mean the 2020 census will yield bad data. Therefore, if it has this question, I hope there's a national movement to refuse participation, so that there is an overwhelming consensus that the results are unusable.
There's always an opportunity to get it right for the 2030 census. We might have to simply skip this one.
4
@Michael
With so many illegal immigrants living in the US doubt any for the last 40 years are worth much. But, all we got.
By all means, refuse participation. I’m sure it will have the same positive results that refusing to vote does.
Of course, it will mean massive cuts to Federal funding. Ten years worth of that ought to finish the job.
2
this reflects a significant win for voting in trump, despite trumps shortcomings. it could enhance the integrity of democracy by making the vote and congressional representation accurately reflective in the long term. If the democrats lose sufficient congressional seats due to enhanced census accurately reflecting real US citizen counts, legislative gridlock could be potentially removed. This might be one of the most significant days yet during trump's presidency and could provide a very substantial and important long term impact. Good bye to the left wing
1
The previous heads of the Census have all said this question is unnecessary as we have better methods to enumerate number of citizens.
This will only serve to reduce the number of people responding--which is, of course, why the administration demanded it be placed in the next Census.
3
It is interesting to see the united front of conservative judges in this case. Is this an indication of the fact the supreme court is now totally politicized or it is the case that conservative judges tend to give government the benefit of doubt in most of situations? If it is the former, this country in serious trouble. If it is the later, shouldn't the judges also consider the issue of consistency in the census data over time? If ten years from now, a Democratic administration decides to remove the question, we could have a case that, depending on the party in power, the census is measuring somewhat different things. This may be a reason for the justices to insist on a rational for change the questions so that it is not arbitrarily decided by one political appointee ignoring the concerns of the professional staff and it has the likelihood of being accepted by the succeeding administration. After all, the current set of questions have been used for many years by administrations of both parties.
1
@CM This is why we should all be insisting on compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. (For instance, has this question even been pretested (or in current parlance, beta-tested)? My understanding is that it has not.
It's not about policy. It's about an accurate count. That is the foremost duty of the position. And that what is expected by "policy" decisions. What will make for the most accurate count.
1
If this Court upholds the administration's citizenship question on the census, it will cement is reputation as wholly unprincipled and as another "captured agency" instead of an independent branch of government. That legacy includes Bush v. Gore (illustrating the conservative principle that states have rights such as controlling their own voting except when they don't), in which the Court decided who would be president, and Shelby County v Holder (illustrating the principle that the Court should respect Congress's will except when it doesn't want to), in which the Court decided that states should be allowed to disenfranchise voters on the basis of race, which they promptly did. Here, the Commerce Department clearly has violated the Administrative Procedure Act by putting in place a rule that is arbitrary and capricious. A citizenship question cannot promote the aim of the census, which is to determine an accurate count of the people who live in this country. It is therefore necessarily arbitrary. If the Court upholds the citizenship question, we no longer have a fact- and rule-based democracy in which those who live here can rely on the rule of law to save them from the arbitrary whims of those in power.
9
While I would very much agree with Secretary Ross adding the citizenship question to the US census form -- for heavens sakes, isn't that clearly relevant, isn't that the point? -- I would very much wish he'd remove all check boxes concerning race and ethnicity. What a hideous offensive irrelevancy!
8
@RLS
The point is not to count citizens. The point is to count everyone.
2
@PS1
Does everyone, US citizen or not, count in the apportionment of congressional seats?
I don't know but it seems like they shouldn't.
Would it be right for a state to increase its congressional representation at the expense of another state's (billions and billions of federal dollars are at stake) by flying RT a couple hundred thousand Slovenians over for a big BBQ census weekend bash?
Republicans are using firstly every possible dirty trick in the book. Now we get to see if the Supreme Court is a partisan institution or not. Its history is not good.
5
The only real argument not to include the citizenship question is inaccurate results. However, it is more important to know within a few million how many illegal persons are here vs how many TV sets. Latest estimates vary from 10-22million. What looney country is too afraid to ask who is in the country?
13
@Allright The Census Bureau does already collect info on citizenship, but through other surveys that it conducts yearly. This information is used extensively by researchers.
Boycott the question, win in 2020 and pack the court, as it is determined to back Trump's racist policies.
4
Simple solution: Everyone answer 'yes'.
6
@Dr. OutreAmour better yet everyone answer NO. what would they do then shred those and do it all over again. doubt it.
1
They aren't conservatives. They are Republicans.
Conservatives don't want to go against precedent, and would tend to follow lower court rulings. A conservative court wouldn't have even taken this up. An activist Republican court, on the other hand, will do whatever it takes to keep Republicans in power. Bush v. Gore. Citizens United. You name it.
They have no shame, they have no principals, they are anti-American and half of them weren't even appointed by democratically elected Presidents, but electoral college-elected Presidents. They are all going to burn in the history books as the crooks who ruined America.
9
Everyone gets counted. Just answer the questions.
5
This is a deliberate attempt to reduce representation and federal funds to more diverse states. Advocacy groups must get the word out to non-citizen immigrants to answer the census and leave the citizenship question blank.
6
I agree. Simply say how many people live there and that the government has no right to know anything else. Especially in the republican police state.
1
While researching my family tree, I noticed that when my immigrant ancestors applied for citizenship in the 19th century, only the men applied. Women couldn't vote, and I suppose that means they weren't fully citizens. And yet starting with the first census in 1790, they were counted. So were children and slaves. That tells me something about what the Founders intended.
The real solution to this conundrum is a path to citizenship for the undocumented. But nobody, not even the most radical Democrats, seems to want to even discuss it. My Irish ancestors weren't welcome here, either. But they made it, and they became citizens. America is not "full." There's plenty of room here still.
8
This issue is exactly like voter ID - at face value a complete no-brainer, but since it would be politically disadvantageous to Democrats it’s an OUTRAGE
16
@Andrew L you do not know what you are talking about! The GOP has made things harder and harder to vote over the years despite the fact we are in 2019!
2
For those that are legal immigrants to the US, such as visa-holders, permanent residents, green card holders, US Nationals, and the like, there is nothing wrong or prejudicial in asking about current status as part of the enumeration. Frankly, they're used to that. Permanent residents are required to carry status evidence (i.e., their green card and ID) at all times regardless.
For those that are here illegally, I'm not sure why the courts should be protecting their status even *if* it reduces turnout. This is like demanding an "Are you currently a fugitive from the law?" question be removed on account of feelings getting hurt. There may be a technical aspect to the debate, but overall it misses the underlying point.
12
This conservative majority is a joke. Pure and simple. The census isn't there to count citizens - that much is clear from the constitutional language - it's there to count EVERYONE. Nobody, not even the government's own Solicitor General, denies this will make it harder to do that. And even if this was a wise idea on the merits, the way it's being done reeks of political motives at worst, and at best is being done without going through the right process to make it happen.
And five justices are probably going to let it go ahead.
All I know is, if history is written about this time, John Roberts is not gonna be regarded as one of the better chief justices in our history. Which is more than I can say for his the judicial activists on his side of the bench.
3
Am I too naive in thinking that the census is to find out how many people are living at a given time in the country.....a record that has been a life-saver in researching ancestry..... Why does it now have to become a political toy? Another Trump destruction of our country pillars ....
8
Any true conservative would argue for the fewest number of questions that comply with a strict reading of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution requires an actual enumeration of persons resident within the country. Thus, any question asking about citizenship is just more big-government time-wasting. It also verges on the so-scary 'technical' feature of numbers and data that scares and intimidates Justice Alito.
6
Maybe this has been addressed somewhere, but what's to prevent a non-citizen from claiming citizenship in their response?
6
The law prevents it. You must answer the census questions, and you must answer correctly. To not answer, or to answer incorrectly, is a violation of federal law.
1
@Michael - and if they're here illegally anyway - in violation of Federal law ...
I wonder how far the census taker is mandated to go in verifying this, and for that matter how far the census taker goes in verifying gender, etc.
Not terribly shocking – but still, another government institution conservatives are eager to cynically politicize. The less we know, the more easily the GOP can get their followers to believe anything that's politically convenient. This does fit perfectly with both their war on science and facts in general, and their desire to undermine and subvert all functions of government, so of course the conservative wing is all for it.
It also is yet another example of the tendency of liberals to cling to institutions, and the folly of holding out hope that we will be "saved" by some upstanding judge/bureaucrat/politician hero in the face of otherwise certain disaster (e.g. the Mueller investigation, and the idea that the courts will save abortion rights, gay rights, voting rights).
In other words, Chief Justice Roberts isn't going to save us. Assume you're going to have to do it yourself. Now what? What will you do? How will you fight, when you can no longer say "Oh, it will be ok, because of x"? Will liberals be prepared to undertake the same kind of multi-decade fight that conservatives have been fighting since the 80s to remake the country in their image? Because that's what it's going to take.
1
A census is a count of people living in the US and should be kept that way.
With thanks to TJ Martin A few minutes ago for the information as to which questions must be answered... As a natural born US cotizen, if it comes to it those are the only ones I will answer. Even when / if a poor exhausted census employee comes to the door to do the in-person followup to get the additional responses.
The Supreme Court's decision will be interesting though - to add such a question would seem to run as counter to truly conservative thought / philosophy as to liberal, if indeed not more so. It seems more an example of vindictive Trumpian thought, lashing out angrily to create division that it's owner thinks will benefit his anti- immigrant position and bolster his rep among his "base." .
3
One more piece of the great GOP attempt to make America white again. Plain and simple. Their plan is working. It's amazing how many people don't even understand the constitution and just feel it is okay to ask the question if the president wants. That's a travesty of our educational system, which the GOP has also been chipping away at....it all begins to make sense.
2
Looking for fairness and justice within the walls of the Supreme Court building is, alas, a fool's errand. As a way to keep oneself half-sane, I'm trying to pull back from following national events of all kinds because it's not about negotiations and coming up with a good compromise but rather will one entrenched interest (or Justice) switch sides and do the right thing. For most issues coming before the Court or this country, the balance is against doing the right thing. In this case in particular, I've no doubt that whatever convoluted reading of the Constitution the conservatives can finagle they will to reach their political conclusion. I don't expect anything more. So therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we must simply wait until the next general election and the hopeful ouster of the current charlatan-in-chief and thereafter the appointments of FAIR and EQUITABLE and DECENT men and women to the Supreme Court as well as other institutions in our government, many of which are being defiled by scheming and ill-designing people of the worst kind.
2
I guess the only alternative we have is to boycott this census out of protest.
4
@Dorothy Or emigrate to another country.
3
@Rennata Wilson. Better check that out more carefully. Not every country lets you sneak across the border then protects you from having to leave like we do.
Is there really any question as to why Wilbur Ross added the question? He works for an administration that has and continues to wage war against people of color! This is yet another attempt at voter suppression. This question in no way will help the justice department enforce the Voter Rights Act it will have the reverse effect. It's interesting to note that this court, that prides itself on process even allowed this case to come before it. Mr. Ross didn't follow the process required by Congress to add the question, the lower courts are in agreement that this question has no business being in the next census. It would have been more appropriate to have agreed with the lower courts and if the administration really had a valid purpose to add the question it would have years to convince congress to act. If the court agrees with the Ross question it will impact our very democracy for generations.
5
@LT Ferrara I am also the holder of Permanent Residence status. I have not elected to apply for citizenship even though many multiples of five years have passed since I entered this country. When so many people are unable or unwilling to understand the difference between residency status and non-residence status this is very concerning. Even the wording of the proposed census question is alarming. Born here/naturalized/ not born here are the choices on the question. Permanent residents are entitled to BE REPRESENTED, even if they don’t have a direct choice in who represents them—a vote, in other words—but I have legitimate ways to participate in democracy and I should be counted. Meanwhile, while PERMANENT Residents are supposed to be permanent, this status can be revoked for limited and extreme causes. Naturalized citizenship can also be revoked under very limited circumstances. Should we all be vulnerable to having those limited and egregious circumstances expanded at the whim of passing political fancy? I don’t know what I will do with the citizenship question until I actually see it, but as my current understanding stands I should decline to answer it. It is currently a very bad faith question.
7
Given the likelihood that this Supreme Court will allow the citizenship question, I hope legal scholars and legislators are beginning to plan ahead for possible remedies to the inaccurate 2020 census. I would think that Congress has the duty and authority to hold hearings to determine whether the census is clearly inaccurate and to legislate corrective action based on the facts and evidence. A lot of the evidence has already been compiled in the three federal cases that ruled against the question. This could only succeed, of course, with a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democrat in the White House. In the meantime, a legal road map and legislative tactic should be developed.
5
What almost everyone on both sides of this argument fails to recognize is that it's not the judicial branch's job to determine the best policy here. Although judges often decide cases based on policy preferences, the Court's only appropriate role is to determine whether the executive branch has the authority to add this question.
The relevance of the question at issue is not really in doubt, as it has historically been asked often, and as the issue of the makeup of the populace is clearly important. a question on citizenship can hardly be characterized as arbitrary or capricious. Conducting the Census is a power the Constitution assigns to the government, and absent any specific constraints imposed by legislation, this seems to be within the purview of the Executive Branch (including an implicit decision to NOT include a citizenship question.)
Judicial speculation concerning the motives of the decision makers or the impact of the question on participation are not appropriate roles for judges who tend to answer such questions in accordance with their partisan leanings. There should not be a Republican or a Democrat answer to a legal question, as there would be to a political question. This is precisely why the Court needs to shut down judges who want to act as policymakers.
7
"Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the Trump administration, acknowledged that the question could depress participation. But he said the information it would yield was valuable."
I think that is supposed to read "Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the Trump administration, acknowledged that the question was valuable because it could depress participation."
7
Why not a headline that reads “Supreme Court Liberals Appear United”?
9
@David- Easy. Because this is a political issue which the R's favor and since the R's in are in the majority in SCOTUS it means that they are following he political preference of the administration. It should actually read that the "R's on the court are united. A very predictable outcome.
@cec. Are the other members just following the D’s political preference? Have you read the briefs filed with the Court to determine which side has the better legal argument, or is it just a matter of political preference? And if it is just a “political” issue, then politics wins.
Just another tactic to shift federal funding to the Red Welfare States.
Maybe those lazy states should pull themselves up by the bootstraps instead of waiting on handouts from the blue states.
14
@Sterling they won't...they will keep voting in Mitch McConnell and wondering why they are the poorest state in the union.
2
@Sterling. Inconvenient fact. California 12% of u.s. population, 35% of welfare recipients.
The Supreme Court, once a court that could be trusted as fully non partisan as the founders not only had intended, but were aware that if that was not the case, democracy would be finished. And now it is so far, the Supreme court cannot be trusted anymore and has become part of the Presidential power.
How did America let this happen?
There can only be one answer, the unending quest for total power by one party, one race, one religion and by Individual One.
The one non white judge present behaves more extreme white that the others.
This group selected by a highly partisan Congress with no respect for One United Country.
They want the very rich that helped put them there stay in power for ever.
Our Constitution upon all judges and Congress members have sworn on is now barely worth the paper it is written on.
They talk about it as if there life, our life depends on it, but their voices are treasonous and fully hypocrite.
Their lies have taken the place of real
communication and respect for each other.
America is becoming very quickly like Russia and China and our leadership believes that is a good thing.
Morality makes them laugh.
Only a hard break could possibly rescue some of it.
Even that might be too late as this President loves to be compared with Russia and China.
2
I still hope Roberts will care enough about the honesty of the court to vote against this, but I suspect he may be afraid of the brown hordes invading our country and vote for an undercount. Every legal immigrant who is able should apply for citizenship now. There are immigrant organizations who can help and ferret out any potential problems, as I believe fear is causing many people not to apply. If you are a legal immigrant who qualifies for citizenship, or know of one, apply. We need your votes and you will be better protected.
4
I will never forgive Joe Biden for Clarence Thomas.
7
Get used to this nonsense masquerading as jurisprudence. It was done before and many countries do it. So what. It results in an undercount on the census. Wake up.
4
This may backfire bigly! Some of the Red states have the biggest illegal immigrant populations. For example: Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina
The law of unintended consequences.
My bet is someone will fill out those forms in those private prisons that are being used for ICE. Just like all prison populations seem to get counted for the census. The local sheriff tends to know he needs to count bodies to keep the funds coming in to the plantation.
3
Of course the Supreme Court will bless the question. It’s the only correct outcome to what ought to be a simple matter (shouldn’t have even been raised in the first place but people are frivolous as all get up these days and will now refuse to concede as to the truth of statements like “water is wet”). Some folks have said the only legitimate purpose of a census is to establish headcount, and thus any question not germane to that limited inquiry is to be disallowed, conveniently forgetting that there’s already a slew of other questions that are not necessary to establish headcount which have been used without dispute for many, many years.
Main concern cited by liberals here is that people who lack a legitimate right to be here under our laws are going to further disrespect our laws by not answering the census (as required by our laws) because of the new question. If true, this would cause states with disproportionate illegal immigrants to not receive voting credit for their illegal immigrants.
What a profoundly ridiculous concern! If an illegal immigrant breaks our laws by not responding to the required census, we don’t change our census to accommodate this lawlessness. Rather, residents, legal or otherwise, either answer the questions our legislators have decided are to be answered or we throw them in jail. That may sound harsh but it’s how all societies of laws operate. Incredible that this has to be explained to the supposedly educated NYT readership base!
11
What a profoundly ridiculous assertion- that people will not answer the census because they don't want to follow our laws. It doesn't take much education to understand that they wouldn't do so because they are afraid - very afraid, particularly now when productve people who have lived here peaceably for decades are being ripped from their families.
1
I never made any assertion about the reasons why people choose not to follow our laws while living within our borders. I simply said that in a society of laws there are consequences to not following the law. I also understand people who’ve moved here in violation of our laws are afraid of being deported. I don’t wish harm on them, and may fully understand doing whatever it takes to escape poverty, but as a country we have an absolute right to decide who gets to be here. America already accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world. Maybe we should accept even more, but at a certain point, I think our government should focus its laws and programs on its own citizens. With 70,000 Americans dying every year from overdoses, I think that time is right now!
I am amazed at the comments section from this paper when compared to the comments I read in the WSJ on this subject or anything political. We really live in two Americas.
17
Once again, it appears this Supreme Court will vote based on party rather than law. Truly awful.
3
@Eeyore--whats changed in the census law since this question was previously legal to be asked?
4
Civil rights movement.
1
Democrats continue to keep making the same mistakes that they did in 2016. Everything is revenge against Trump. I’m Hispanic and liberals continue to be out of touch with a large number of Hispanics which really like Trump and his policies. I live in South Florida and a large number of Venezuelans and Cubans (which I am neither) are pro Trump and South Florida has a very large Hispanic population. Democrats continue to push the agenda for illegals but the majority of Hispanics like myself are against illegal immigration. If liberals don’t stop this madness they will loose the election again. Remember, illegals don’t vote right??
19
@Lizzie Talking about hypocrites. Cubans are "legal" only for retaliation against Cuba. Honestly, tell me, how are Cuban escapes different from those from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador?
1
SCOTUS is supposed to be composed of the smartest ones among us. The reported attitude of the conservatives is a concurrence of reflexive prejudice and purposeful ignorance.
“'This gets really, really technical,' Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said." With all due respect , Mr. Justice, if you and your confreres cannot handle this, please get out of the way of people who can. Otherwise, SCOTUS runs the risk of becoming the Supreme Crooks, or the Supreme Clowns, falling into the depths of contempt that engulf much of the rest of our government.
4
If this question appears on the census, I for one will boycott it. If enough people do, it can blow up in the GOP's face and bring further exposure to their antidemocratic practices.
5
I agree....we ALL should boycott it! the census will be a sham either way.
1
@S Or it could blow up in your face... your district may not be properly represented and you will loose funds that are much needed. Your form may not be counted if not answered truthfully.
2
@Lizzie Good point, but I don’t think there is a risk it would not be counted because there would be no lying when omitting a question. The only possible penalty is a fine or having door knockers come and ask for an answer, but if half the country did not answer that question, there would be no capacity to enforce such practices without enormous blowback. Either way, it’s a great point and I look toward our elected representatives to take leadership on this.
A stolen seat and a sex offender could destroy the legitimacy of elections for the next decade.
Republicans despise democracy, our Constitution, our laws, and our American values
6
The Republican Party no longer exists. It is now the party of Trump and needs to be voted out of office ASAP.
1
Apparently, the current conservative justices on SCOTUS will allow the white supremacist advocacy program, advanced by Trump Xenophobia Adviser Stephen Miller, to prevail.
This new act reminds one of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law on May 6, 1882. It prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers to the USA. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the US. It was abetted by the white supremacist members of SCOTUS during that era. The scourge of white supremacism lingers in the fabric of this country.
It is sad for America that, with this Census action, that vile history is repeating itself here.
1
If we would like challenged Democratic laws to be upheld someday on the basis of those laws having a rational basis and not being arbitrary or capricious, challenged Republican-backed laws should be evaluated on the same basis. I may not like this proposed question, but so long as the census does more than count heads, it is not without a rational basis. Hold nose and uphold it.
1
As far as I believe the malicious intention of adding this question by the Trump administration, the Supreme Court has no ground to overturn it. The SCOTUS is in no position to make admin decisions against bad policies.
Elections have consequences. I'm talking to you, Sanders supporters who flipped or didn't vote for Hillary.
4
In this and in so many other ways, Conservative but minority views are taking the nation in directions the majority of us don't want to go, ways that are unconstitutional.
Mitch McConnell's brazen and illegal co-opting of the process of filling a vacant Supreme Court seat has been paying off for him and for Republicans. Someday it will be reversed, but until that day we all have to suffer with a Court that sides with the minority view almost all the time.
Color me discouraged.
2
Of course the Supreme Court in its current construction, allowing a measure that will suppress the accuracy of your census.
The will of the white population of the US to corrupt democracy out of sheer demographic fear is quite frightening to behold. Is it so scary that you will allow your democracy to keep withering because of the fear?
Not just this story but Trump administration refusing to subject to congress. It’s baffling to watch, the sheer complacency of the US population. I can only conclude it is purely fear that the white majority will not be a majority for too much longer.
1
Another nail in the coffin of democracy as Republicans seek to build a permanent majority and single-party rule.
3
@JTW It's not really obvious who will benefit. The vast deep South is where most illegal immigrants are. And those states are all deep red. They could lose House seats.
1
Any scholar (professional or amateur) of the US Supreme Court will understand that youi must look beyond the seemingly simple question at hand and look to the underlying reasons and outcomes of any case that is granted certiorari.
Yes this case is about the citizenship question on the census. More importantly it is about executive branch power when interpreting the Constitution and laws of this country. Can Wilbur Ross (a executive branch political appointee) disregard the facts / evidence / literal language of the Constitution and determine policy solely based on executive branch political considerations? How much leeway to we give the executive branch to achieve a political goal without a rational justification?
Make no mistake, this is a test for our Supreme Court and the role it plays as the interpreter and guardian of our Constitution and laws.
It is also a test for the ‘conservative’ Justices and their “originalist” approach, how malleable are they based on political considerations? Will they cede power to the executive branch simply because the current office holder is from the same political party? Will they become “conservative activists” Justices much like we had in the late 1800 - early 1900’s? That is what is going on here....
2
Well said!
This is how the Supreme Court will enable the right wing to cut *your* benefits, reduce Congressional seats for Democrats, suppress the vote, and continue the tyranny of the minority.
4
@Cyclist--while the push from dems on immigration is to create more dem voters, whether it be the illegal parents who come in and we give them the vote or the next generation born here who are automatically citizens and can vote.
1
The question of citizenship is as important to the census as any other question on the census, The excuse that will discourage immigrants is just plain silly. It might discourage illegals, who should not be in this county in the first place. The entire Democratic argument on this issue is not about anything more than trying to get as many people in districts as possible to control funding, the votes in the electrical college and of course politically controlled nonsense. If you don't asked all the questions, don't have the census and save taxpayers all that money.
6
So are we not counting children under 18 who don't vote, even if they are citizens?
1
Absurd. All these "originalists" conveniently ignore that from the start, the census counted inhabitants, not citizens -- including slaves, who were clearly not considered citizens until after the Civil War and the 14th Amendment. Love the way we're supposed to adhere to the original text and intent of the US Constitution when that suits GOP purposes, but forget its history when it doesn't. Second Amendment and well-regulated militias, anyone?
4
Partisan issues set aside: If it is appropriate to ask in a survey a person's age, sex and income bracket, what is so shocking about inquiring about citizen status? Should estimating the number of citizens within a country be considered evil?
Of course, these days it seems impossible to discuss any matter in America without construing it as pro or anti Trump. That has become the national obsession.
9
One of the mistakes people are making about this case is the notion that counting illegals gives "them" representation and the like. No, what it does is increase funds for the district that will help all residents, legal and illegal, with all of them paying taxes for those funds. Illegals pay taxes, and legals are paying taxes for the benefit of all in the district, and not counting illegals will not change any of this except to deprive the district of funds it is otherwise entitled to.
5
Well said!
What’s so wrong with having a census of American citizens ?
The nation we’re proud of as American citizens. The nation that we pledge “duty, honor, country” to defend and protect. With our lives if necessary. And to do so for American citizens. Not the tens of millions illegals, undocumented, etc. who violate our laws and make a mockery of our immigration statutes. Lets celebrate our citizenship with a census of American citizens. It’s what hundreds of thousands of our best sacrificed their lives to protect. They sacrificed for America. And we ought honor that sacrifice by honoring citizenship. Especially through a census of citizens.
9
This will be another political decision made by the Supreme Court. Yes, elections do matter!!
1
I live in a "sanctuary city" where it has become pretty tiresome to see elected officials constantly pander to illegal immigrants. It looks like non-citizens and those who support non-citizens are becoming the chief political driving force. It has gotten ridiculous. It cheapens the value of American citizenship. I want to know how many non-citizens actually live in my city. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
10
Can you skip the question and still have your census documented counted? I would happily do that.
2
The Constitution clearly states that the census count “the whole number of persons in each state.” Says nothing about citizens vs non-citizens.
3
Is there anyone out there who does not think the Republican Party is ready to destroy democracy to remain in power?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of "Americans" who applaud the idea.
1
It's simple - everyone just boycott the Census.
Never mind that if you are here in America, the city, the state, and the nation will do its best by you and for you, the "citizenship question" will usher in a decade of heightened discrimination and diminished tolerance that threatens a basic tenet of humanity. What's next... three fifths of a person status for those from Central America?
2
So the conservatives on the Court are back together again, it seems. What I don't understand is why all this discussion of impeachment of Trump rather than discussion of investigation/prosecution/impeachment of Kavanaugh for the numerous lies he told during the Ford hearing? Isn't the latter far more important long-term?
2
Every nation state has the right to ask and find out the nationality status of any/every individual within its geographic boundaries. This is practically (almost) the definition of a sovereign nation. No person who objects to the reasonable and uniform exercise of this right and responsibility can seriously be considered for the position of Chief Executive.
3
Right, the Trump administration (and Republicans) tell us they want an accurate count of people in the census. That’s why they’ve cut the budget and tried to hobble the process since the inauguration.
What is their intent do you think Chief Justice Roberts?
The Constitution demands a count of all people in the land every 10 years. That means ALL people. The census wasn’t instituted for counting citizens or voters. For instance, women did not have the right to vote in 1789 but they were counted.
If you want citizen information pass another law.
2
Once again, the most fundamental problem here is that the executive branch is making this decision, rather than Congress. We live in a time in which the executive branch has too much power, largely as a result Congress being missing in action (or inaction). For 2030, maybe a Democratic administration will have added or deleted other questions. This issue can be answered by Congress, and i believe the judiciary would be more inclined to follow a law duly passed by the legislative branch, rather than an executive branch fiat.
1
Since the Census is collecting important information regarding those living in the country, and can provide valuable information to Congress, the Commerce Department and all of the key numbers used for taxing and representation, let's add the question for political affiliation, or which ticket you voted for in the most recent national election!
Then the census results can be used to set districts for voting for congress and the presidency. Why is that no less important than citizenship? What will be done with the households who answer the question indicating they are not citizens? Just demographic studies? Then count the republican, democratic and other party voters and include them as well.
I see a lot of comments on this article ignoring the fact that asking the question about citizenship results in undercounting the population. Period.
Regardless of how you feel about the question, if you want an accurate census, you don't ask the question. What more is there to consider? There are various other ways to estimate the number of non-citizens (both legal and illegal) residing in the country. We don't need the census to do that - and as said before, doing so would result in an inaccurate census.
At this point, defending the inclusion of the question is tantamount to denying the evidence of climate change. It might make you feel good, or maybe you just don't get the science - but you're talking from a place of ignorance.
5
Is filling out and returning the form mandatory, punishable by some kind of penalty? Is selectively answering, then returning the form permissible or would that be punishable? Is filling out this form (or part of it) legally optional?
1
When you consider how the GOP has treated immigrants over the past years, do you honestly believe a person in this country who was born in another country would consider filling out a census form? Of course not. Why, because the government treats immigrants this week according to what the courts say, and then next week they treat immigrants differently because the court may rule differently. It is called gov't confusion, no concert policy, discrimination, my way or the highway, lies, deceit, it is the way of the GOP party that rules the White House today. So, why have a census when the country is divided in how it should count people. It is called government melt down. Pitiful. The census has turned into a political tool. It was designed to say who are we as a nation, but no longer is that the case. It is a political tool.
2
Well said!
Let’s all leave the citizenship question box empty, thereby allowing for our state’s non-citizens the security of filling out the census without marking that box. States that will not organize such a move will discourage their non-citizens from filling out the census and their population count will decrease, a great boomerang affect on the conservatives’ initiative!
No surprises here. Whether or not you answer the question is up to you since the census per the Constitution is a nose count tor determining the number of representatives each state will send to the House.
The question can be added as soon as an amendment to the Constitution is passed. Supreme Court justices who take the administration's side on this is nothing but right wing judicial activism of the highest order.
Gorsuch and Kavanuagh aren't even legitimate Justices in the eyes of many people, myself included.
1
“There’s nothing unusual about a new cabinet secretary coming to office inclined to favor a different policy direction, soliciting support from other agencies to bolster his views, disagreeing with staff or cutting through red tape,” Justice Gorsuch wrote at the time. “Of course, some people may disagree with the policy and process. But until now, at least, this much has never been thought enough to justify a claim of bad faith and launch an inquisition into a cabinet secretary’s motives.”
-----------------------------------
In other cases, did cabinet secretaries later give accounts of their decision making that were completely at odds with the idea that they simply had certain policy preferences when they took office? I mean come on: what a ridiculous statement. Talk about comparing apples and oranges. Ross said he ordered the question added in response to a December 2017 request, but that's obviously not true. The problem is not that he had intend to add the question all along, it's that he lied about it.
According to the Washington Post's coverage of oral arguments. "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that historically the census has asked far more than just where people live. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch pointed out that the citizenships question was asked on the short form more times than it was not. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said that the United Nations advised that countries should ask such a question."
4
Looks like it's time to preempt the predictable 5-4 decision by issuing a nationwide call to boycott the citizenship question, and launching a grassroots campaign to encourage all non-citizens to complete the rest of the census form (because the Dept of Commerce obviously won't do it).
1
It has become flagrantly clear that many of the commenters here want to keep criminals in their communities. The backlash to this question is clear that the "Progressive Left" wants to throw cover over those who are here in our country illegally. I would ask why? Why is it OK to allow those who have snuck into the country and are here illegally to stay? Why are you opposed to a question on our census that would help determine the quantity of non-citizens who reside in our nation? Why are these folks not willing to secure our border? Why are you prioritizing the comfort of those here illegally over citizens of the nation who are impoverished and in need?
5
The impoverished and their needs? You vote republican shouldn’t they pull themselves up by their boot straps!
1
For those advising people to not answer the citizenship question on census forms, the minimum fine for refusing to answer census question or answering then dishonestly is $5,000.
10
@William Case It is also impossible to prove the "refusing" or "dishonestly" part legally. Playing dumb is your friend. Incompetence is your best defense.
And BTW, I'm in no way agree with not answering that question. It's really no a smart move and could end up losing House seats.
1
This is probably one of the most important cases to go before the Supreme Court, it will determine whether frightened illegal immigrants will fill out the census or not, which by our Constitution all should.
If they don't get counted our districts will be skewed and incorrectly counted. This affects all aspects of our federal allotments, and most important, assigned political representation.
I have hope Chief Justice Roberts will do the right thing and keep this question from getting on the cencus.
15
Boycott the Census! Even if this hurts your community! It is civil disobedience that anyone in America can undertake. This is the Trump Census. Let them undercount the liberal cities and states. They are already being shafted due to the U.S. Senate and Electoral College. I favor anything that will disenfranchise the majority of Americans and lead to a violent overthrow of the current right-wing government. Americans need a new revolution. If the government under Trump is causing terror, terrorists need to fight the Trump government.
1
@Richard Grayson. You don’t even live here.
6
The census is used to help determined where people live, info on their backgrounds, etc, but it also helps determine the amount of money provided to the states. To start asking if you are a citizen allows the government to also adjust the dollars sent to each state, meaning they could also add a question as to your politics - are you a Dem or Pub and depending on who is president and who is in charge of Congress, they could provide money to the states they choose to based on who supports them. There is no need for this question to be placed on the census. This is another form of gerrymandering.
10
(Please pardon my extreme concern...but...)
Republicans are surely putting a slow moving coup in place for our country. Despite not being a majority party around the country, they have the perfect storm with Trump.
Trump is unfit for office, no matter. The Republicans who actually think (like McConnell), are executing a brilliant plan.
Shut down polling, fail to count certain votes, gerrymander districts, pack Federal courts with lackeys, alter the census, punish high tax states by changing the tax law. Such states normally trend Democrat.
To paraphrase Lenin, Trump is the “useful idiot” necessary for Mitch to play his “long game.”
It is a unified concerted effort to maintain power to push forward a massive halt to progress in our country. And it seems to be working, considering the limits Democrats have to push back.
I am very fearful that the rapid reversal by the GOP may be unstoppable and the very foundations of our democratic republic are cracking beyond repair.
And I hope I am wrong.
18
@Charles Van Sant
I don't think you are wrong.
Maybe the House could not fund the Census?
2
I'll not answer that question if it appears, even if Trump and Ross send the New Mexico Militia to get me.
4
With help from the disgusting Mitch McConnell and his goose-stepping GOP goons, Trump's hijacking of Congress, the Supreme Court (read: Extreme Court) and the basic tenants of American democracy appears to be all but certain. But here is a fact they can put in their pipes and smoke: Neither I nor should any freedom-loving American NOT tick a box on a census form indicating whether or not we are a citizen. Period. To do so is to see would-be dictator Trump and his fellow haters find new ways to disenfranchise more voters at the least, and at the worst, root them out for arrest, deportation or punishment. If the Extreme Court is foolish enough, and misguided enough to allow this hideous rule change, they further cement their place in the darkest part of American history, the reign of would-be King Trump The Last.
6
I believe that John Roberts will do the right thing as he did with Obamacare.
1
I don't really understand the need for many of the questions in the census. If the only goal is to count the number of people, why does it need to know my age, gender, income, or anything else. All they would need to know is how many people are living in my household.
Let them ask me how I rate our local roads, bridges, public transportation, our water systems, etc. Those are questions I would happily answer.
1
If people aren't going to answer they should be separated from those that rely on information being taken from them and used to identify them. I am identifiable and want nothing more than to have myself as my identity represented.
1
I have ZERO problems with this on our census. We should be able to gather data on citizens vs. non-citizens in our own country. If people choose not to participate then outcome will be less redistribution of our tax money into those areas.....
17
@Mystery Lits
We already redistribute money from blue to red states. I'm good with redistributing less to red states.
1
Not to question the integrity and wisdom of the honorable SC Judges but the likely outcome will be the result of yet another backdoor trick to create a an environment of fear by the Republican party. Obviously in today nativist atmosphere, fewer and fewer legal resident(non-citizens) will report being present in their districts, never mind undocumented residents.
Victory given to this trick by the SC will not be good for the country. People of color in particular will eventually suffer.
1
We will soon see, with due respect,whether SCOTUS it is a King's Court or a Judicial Court, and whether the Justices are the King's courtiers or the Judges of our Country
4
@Max Lewy. So they have to vote your way? Where did you go to law school?
3
One who is potentially subject to deportation due to illegal status should not be considered a permanent resident of a state or city. Additional representation should not include those who are permanent residents.
4
@Jaco in Nevada—advocating that even legal immigrants with permanent status should not be counted for representation purposes is taxation without representation. We LIVE here! By your reasoning we would not be obligated to even fill out a census form. Meanwhile, the US has one of the lowest eligible voting participants in the world....go figure!
The primary purpose of the census is to determine apportionment in the House of Representatives. What is the question in this particular case? I think the issue at hand that is causing concern is how non-citizens should be counted. The Constitution appears to be moot on this matter. For legal immigrants who are not American citizens, I think the question is open as to whether or not their numbers should be included in the totals when it comes to apportionment. Intuitively, I think the answer is "no" but I might be persuaded otherwise. Again, the Constitution doesn't state that one way or the other. It is inconceivable to me, however, that illegal immigrants should be included when it comes to making that determination. This is why I think New York and California so vehemently oppose having this question on the census form. They stand to lose if SCOTUS determines the question to be constitutional and if the Trump Administration subsequently did not include those numbers in the final count when it came to figuring out how many seats in the House they would receive.
5
In lots of comments, I see people who are citizens and/or legal residents of the US say they're either not going to answer the census or they're not going to answer the citizenship question.
I'm guessing most of these are residents of blue states where the citizenship question is said to result in under-representation.
So, if you refuse to do the census or the question, you are only contributing to the undercount. Cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't make sense.
5
This citizenship question on the census does not appear to have much bearing on what the constitution states.
While I do not necessarily oppose the citizenship question which is being added, I do question the ulterior motives of a documented racist and anti-immigrant administration that supports it vehemently enough to wind up in a Supreme Court fight over it.
Who’s to say that the citizenship answers will not be used against people in the USA? Like what happened during WWII? It may be illegal for the Bureau to share an individual’s census data, but the data can easily be used as a weapon ...
The Census “bureau can share data at the neighborhood level about specific population groups, as it did during World War II when the government targeted U.S. citizens of Japanese descent and forced them from their homes and into incarceration camps.”
How does the government, the Census Bureau, assure us that targeting groups based on the citizenship answers will not occur? With the trump administration’s disdain for the law, it’s just a matter of time before the Census Bureau’s privacy policies will be breached.
Will then ICE be privy to this new census data?
Where are the accompanying laws and mandatory punishments of fines and jail time if this new census data is misused to target immigrants, documented or otherwise?
1
Someone should write a self-help book applying Sotomayor’s theory here to all aspects of life. Her theory appears to be that one should allow their own conduct and public policy generally to be guided by the irrational or ignorance-based fears of others. So let’s treat the monsters our kids believe live under the bed as real and act accordingly. The rational justices understand that at a time when huge numbers of people are coming to the US, it makes sense to collect data about who and where they are.
5
The problem with the liberals' argument is that its lynchpin depends on the unwillingness of people (illegals) to obey the law requiring responsiveness to the census. I understand why such people do not want to, and do not minimize their concerns about being unceremoniously kicked out of the country should they reveal themselves, but it's hard to win in court when you're saying illegality should be protected. Yes, I know a few courts have bought that argument -- I'm just making a sophisticated point here.
9
The loss of a Supreme Court independent of politics (coupled with an elected demagogue and partisan crippling of Congress)has presaged the end of our tripartite democracy. Our Constitution always presented a paradox. It may be said that our democracy is founded upon the rule of law and not whim of men. But to endure it requires our elected and appointed representatives to be persons of integrity, independence and dedication to the laws and Constitution; persons motivated by blind partisanship cannot fulfill that role and preserve our Democracy. The Supreme Court has succumbed to partisan loyalty. The President, his administration and his spineless GOP Senate set an agenda that may only be altered by our electorate....Who knows how that will go? I am not confident.
Wow! America, what has happened to you? You allow libertarian billionaires to game your system and stack the courts with judges favorable to the wealthy? You allow a small group of right wingers to use social issues and bigotry to rile up a base of voters who ignore the real issues that effect their lives. End result: a small minority now controls the American economy & courts, creating the worst income & wealth inequality ever and making it sustainable for the foreseeable future. How will you recover from this?
5
I just looked at a Canadian census form that had questions about citizenship.
5
The courts are political for some time , taking decisions away from democratic elected politicians.
Not separating illegals from citizens means for the states, cities and communities to give them more political power, financial benefits by asking more funds from the fed besides encouraging more illegals to come and settle.
4
God help us if the supreme court becomes another Trump enabler.
they are trump enablers.
3
So, really, Democrats like illegal immigration because it artificially boosts their numbers in the House and in the Electoral College.
Even worse, Democrats are again using a Slavery provision of the Constitution (apportioning the House and the Electoral College counting non-citizen slaves) to effect this grab power from free citizens.
Sounds like election stealing to me.
And by the way, all those illegal immigrants ARE effectively slave labor, because they can't enforce their rights against employers.
10
If Uncle Sam let by Donald Trump is considering allocation of federal programs and congressional representation based on the number of American citizens living in that area, perhaps they should also consider waving taxes to non Citizens.
Isn't that the ideal of American democracy. No taxation without representation?
5
@Sam. Does that mean the taxpayers who provide for the education and health care of illegals kids, anchor babies and the full ERs will have the option of not paying higher taxes for these services?
8
@Al
I am assuming the local government would still be taxing those illegal kids and anchor babies, as you called them. And the services you mentioned are funded and run by local governments.
Though I would be glad to waive people without kids from paying taxes to pay for education, that seems to be your perspective.
1
@Sam. My point is, that the left cherry picks numbers to purport to show that importing poor, uneducated, unskilled people with large families and few skills is some how economically justified. It isn't. If your family makes 60,000$/yr, not a bad wage, and you have 3 kids, they alone consume an average of 15,000/yr per kid in just education costs. This alone cancels out any taxes they pay, if they pay any. If you think they are going to pay your retirement and Medicare as well, you live in a fantasy world. Importing poverty makes no sense.
As some have commented, the expected ruling could boomerang by inspiring civil disobedience - a movement of people who refuse to participate in red states.
3
Anything to erode and limit actual democracy. That is the Republican-Conservative credo. The policies they espouse are decidedly for a small minority of Americans - the 1%, but you can't win elections with only 1% of the vote, so what do they do? They lie, cheat, and game the system (calling upon foreign assistance if needed).
Gerrymandering, based upon Census data is a long followed recipe for their victories, but apparently that's not enough of an edge so they need to suppress the actual numbers of potential Democratic voters by rigging the Census survey, and they'll get away with it because their rigged Presidential election allowed them to stack the SCOTUS with judges who will back them.
With Republicans in charge, who needs foreign enemies?
8
The Supreme Court of the United States has lost its credibility as a non-partisan source of critically important legal rulings. The rule today is: if your cause is embraced by right wing Republicans, you win. The Court will not win back its credibility in my lifetime, but I have hopes for my childrens'. Today's majority is all too appropriately called that: it is the Court of the majority, and heaven help minority populations and women who want to be treated equally.
5
Here we go again: another fake debate in which the justices pretend to be considering how they will rule on this "issue."
9
With a change in administration in ‘20 (hope springs eternal,) time to pack the court. For the past twenty years we have had the most activist right wing Court in history. Taney must be smiling, wherever he is.
2
Many of us will do what we think is morally right. As a white, female senior citizen who has gone through life being unrepresented and undervalued, I will resist filling out the citizenship question should it appear.
There are millions of undervalued people in this country who deserve to be counted.
I stand with them.
3
The proposed question, viewed via the link in the article, asks whether or not one was born here (or in US territory), is naturalized, or is not a citizen. Not being a citizen does not imply legal status one way or the other.
However, the more the government asks, the more reason to be worried. The episode in American history that no comments here point to is the 1924 National Origin Quota Act that effectively ended immigration for 41 years. That law was designed by looking at foreign-born data gleaned from the census. When they found too many "undesirables" (read: Italians, Slavs, and Jews) were in the 1900 census, they went back to 1890 to create their quotas designed to satisfy their desire to keep the country culturally and racially pure.
So, while the question is seemingly benign, the non-personal data collected can be used to unfortunate effect. As the native-born populous' position on immigration is approaching those of 100 years ago, we should be concerned, to say the least.
6
Seems if you're going to count people in a country, you should not only count the citizens but everyone else and determine their status. It's only in the last 50 years during the greatest wave of immigration (legal and illegal) in our history that it's become non PC to ask basic questions that define who actually makes up the members of this society. Clearly the left fears the actual numbers coming out before they can hopefully get thier potential voters legalized so as to permanently enshrine the mass immigration movement they hold so dear. trying to hide their agenda behind claims of human rights etc is a phony smoke screen. The average American citizen wants to know, who is here, if they are legal, how many there are, and maybe, like almost every other country on earth, if they should leave. It's flat unamerican to want to have a country where it isnt the law that decides who should be here and who shouldn't be. Might as well not have a country at that point.
6
As expected, the SCOTUS is all in on whatever the POTUS demands, as is the Senate, and as will the Federal Courts be at the completion of Trump's first term. We know from polling numbers, the POTUS's numbers are positive in his RED states, likely insuring the Senate and the Electoral College RED in 2020. Looking way out, the Federal Courts after six or eight years will be very dark RED. Wake up America!
Interesting. As a casual outside observer, I see nothing unconstitutional about leaving the question in. It's a question of Federal prerogative: does it have the authority to do this? If the answer is "yes" (and I'm not sure where that lands), then shouldn't the Feds be permitted to do this notwithstanding that it may actually diminish the effectiveness of the survey from a statistical perspective? That, to me, doesn't seem like a legal question, but a practical one.
5
Please folks - remember, this is not America.....this is Trump's and the 1% America. Either vote them out or eventually more and more of us will discover the true cost.
8
Here's a problem: The census will ask people who are not documented to admit to a crime. I see a big 5th and 6th Amendment problem.
Leave it blank.
6
Justice Sotomayor implies that immigrants will lie to the government census takers. Really. Green card holders can apply for citizenship after the time period is met. Why lie?
4
We stopped having a legitimate Supreme Court in 2000. This is simply more evidence that the country is broken and the theocrats want to seize control and strangle it...For their personal benefit and for their Russian puppet masters.
5
I can barely bring myself to read the news anymore, given the daily barrage of mendacity emanating from Wokesterdom.
From the ongoing hysteria over Donald Trump to the Census ‘citizenship’ argument to the obstructionism on behalf of illegal migrants stampeding across our southern border month after month...the faction formerly known as the Democratic Party has lost ALL credibility. They have none.
Advancing, aiding and abetting the interests of ‘illegal’ aliens over the best interests of American citizens? Really? The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering!
Meanwhile, Democrats keep trying to lose my vote. They should stop trying...because they’ve already lost it
9
The citizenship question was asked on either the short form or long form in every census from 1870 to 2000. It was also asked in 1820 and 1830. The long form was dropped in 2010 census because the Census Bureau begun publishing the American Community Survey in 2005.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/2010.html
2
One of the important uses of the census is to inform business decisions that corporations make on the basis of available demographic information.
The corporate-friendly majority on the Supreme Court should keep in mind the importance of an accurate census to the business community.
2
Regardless of the decision, the damage has already been done. No one with an open immigrant status will participate in the census due to this President's and his administration's positions on immigration. I suspect they are already fearful and will refuse to participate regardless of what the Court says.
4
Ah...the beginning of the end of democracy. Let's skew the electoral college even more to the Republicans why don't we. Nothing like a majority of conservative judges on the supreme court. The supreme court is now Supreme.
2
So much for "originalism" when it comes to Conservatism politics ruling the Supreme Court. What a bunch of frauds to bend the constitution to their political allies desires.
They will do the same thing with Trump's tax returns. The law and the Constitution plainly says things. COUNT people. Congress SHALL receive tax information. No more no less.
2
It’s seems a reasonable question. If someone is not comfortable answering it why don’t they can just skip the question. I strongly support expanded and liberalized LEGAL immigration, but realize this will never be politically viable unless we control ILLEGAL immigration. The difference between legal and illegal immigration is as clear as day to thinking people.
8
"Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that adding the question would do damage to the fundamental purpose of the census, which is to count everyone in the nation."
Sorry, but the fundamental purpose of the census is not "to count everyone in the nation".
"After much debate, the framers of the Constitution decided to make population the basis of apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives and the tax liability among the states. To facilitate this, the Constitution mandates that a census be conducted every ten years"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the census was created to count American Citizens...not "everyone".
I expect the next big Democratic proposal to be:
"The Global Voting Rights Act"
- Full and complete American voting rights for all citizens of this world.
5
Your argument neglects the fact that slaves were counted too, or at least 3/5 of each slave was tallied. Were slaves considered to be citizens? No.
2
There is no shame in being a US citizen or legal permanent resident. I am proud to be an American.
11
It’s truly incredible, the clarity and adherence to the precise words of the constitution so many here find with respect to the Census, and the flexibility, obfuscation and rejection of clarity those same people find with respect to the 2nd amendment. You can’t have it both ways folks. The founders no more intended for the census to allocate congressional representation and federal funds on the basis of non-citizen populations than they intended for everyone to carry submachine guns into the grocery store.
4
Whether or not certain groups of people are counted in the census has more than just in time political consequences. Historians use those numbers to reconstruct our nation's history, to study the lives of those who lived in various parts of the country, to generally paint a picture of who we are at any given moment. We get an incomplete picture of our country if we don't count all bodies.
2
@historyprof One way to count the undocumented is to comb the DACA database as well as the DMV databases of states that permit unauthorized aliens to legally drive.
5
Hasn’t the Trump Justice Department stopped enforcing the Voting Rights Act?
4
When we count illegals, they count towards the number of representatives a state has. Think about that.... illegals are getting government representation.
The problem is not what we ask in a census.... the problem is that we allow people to be here who have no legal right to be here.
The solution is to fix the problem. What we do with the illegals is up for debate, but end the insanity by stopping more from coming.
20
@Ny Surgeon - The census is used for far more things than just apportionment. It determines the amount of taxpayer dollars allocated to the states, based on population, for infrastructure, education, and many other factors. And it's used by businesses to determine whether the population of an area is sufficient to merit opening another branch there. ALL of the human beings in a particular city use the infrastructure, all depend on the educational system, whether they're personally going to school. If the census is inaccurate, it penalizes ALL of the people who live in the underrepresented area because they're having to serve a larger number of people with a smaller amount of money.
8
@MegWright Sustained waves of mass illegal immigration as penalized this nation for decades now. It's time to fight back and reclaim our country.
10
@MegWright
Absolutely, but this is a self-fulfilling problem when the states encourage illegal immigration.
10
Why bother going through the song and dance of arguments? This is a partisan court. The outcome is pre-determined.
5
@GIRI You should've been around during the Warren court if you think pre-determination is something invented by the conservative justices. A little history is always a good thing.
7
@Rodgerlodger Yes, agreed about the Warren court. But that is not my point. Partisanship either way is bad. Conservative, Liberal, whatever. Any court, and especially the Supreme Court, is no place for partisanship. It erodes trust. At this point, I do not trust this Roberts court to adjudicate based on equal application of the law. It will always be one sided.
I am an LPR. The government knows perfectly well all about me already, as I had to fill countless forms, have a background check and attend a final interview.
I will answer the census questions with the truth, as I have done with all my previous federal forms.
It seems to me that you are making too much of a fuzz about nothing.
6
A few points:
a) Investigating how laws or regulations are motivated
should have nothing to do whether a Law/Regulation
is Constitutional.
b) Yes, it does make a difference whether you are citizen
or not. Why should a Congressional District exist if it
is composed of 25 % Citizens and 75 % non-Citizens ?
c) We are told there are anywhere between 10,000,000
to 30,000,000 un-documented immigrants in America
that is between 3 % to 10 % of the population.
Perhaps the Census Question will give us a more accurate
picture.
d) No one is going to jail for failing to answer the question -
so please stop with the dramatic declarations of
Civil Disobedience.
e) Can someone please explain to me how un-documented
immigration helps the Poor American Citizen ?
11
Arguing that a citizenship question is unconstitutional because illegals won't participate in the census ignores the fact that many CITIZENS don't participate precisely because the census questionnaire has evolved to include questions seeking highly personal information, such as your income, sources of income, what welfare payments you've received, and a host of other matters. Many consider it an invasion of privacy, and so citizens are actually under-counted because of that. The census doesn't just seek to "count all persons" - it is an invasive tool asking for a lot of personal and financial information.
6
That's not what the Constitution says. Will the Originalists on the Supreme Court rule that way? There are other categories than citizen and undocumented. There are green cards and legal residents and people here on visas.
1
@kKelly in Chicago—a “green card” actually is a Permanent Resident VISA. It entitles permanent residency with many rights and obligations attached to it. There are many other ways to be in this country legally also.
I’m a Democrat who vowed after 2016 to never vote for a Republican, but I have a hard time accepting the argument against the citizenship question. Don’t get me wrong: I adamantly disagree with the people who think illegal immigrants shouldn’t be counted for the purposes of apportionment and resource allocation. By that logic, minors and disenfranchised felons shouldn’t be counted, either. And there’s no way those same people are being genuine when they casually dismiss the importance of accuracy. Like it or not, illegal immigrants are here, using the infrastructure, enlisting in public schools, being protected by police, etc.
At the same time, I can see the value in an accurate CITIZEN count, and no method of figuring it out is perfect. Moreover, the question has been asked before, so it’s not like this would be unprecedented. And like the article says other questions already affect response rate but we still ask them. The Trump administration’s motives are transparent—the justices who say it’s acting in good faith are flat out lying—but unless we put Congress in charge of the Census, it’s operating within its right. Liberals shouldn’t object just because it might hurt them. (Up for debate anyway considering the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona, Texas, Florida, etc.)
That said, the GOP abandoned principle a long time ago, and the voters who are even paying attention to this issue aren’t going to switch parties over this. Republican whining falls on deaf ears.
2
Trump again appears to be winning. Soon he will have one or two more Judges to appoint
4
And that will complete the loss of our government checks and balances and our further approximation to our political (if not military) place in third world countries.
2
@Thomas Lashby
Great attitude towards life ...Trump is all about winning... so he can look down and gloat at the "loosers"... thats what hes into ...as are most of his followers.
More than half the country are "loosers" ... deserving ridicule, hatred or worse... they call it MAGA.
2
Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that questions about citizenship had been asked on many census forms over the years and were commonplace around the world......and what constitution do our justices interpret? I’m beyond deflated today after reading this.
5
Trump's supreme court may have justices reminded who place them there and the need for loyalty to Trump as Comey was asked to pledge. Perhaps with AG Barr and his new 5 to 4 court Trump can undo the New Deal aspects that McConnell despises creating a pure right wing authoritarian govt that may suspend elections by executive order.
2
Once again 'conservatives' are being selective with their arguments. How many years have they been banging on about American jurisprudence shouldnt "under any circumstances" be influenced by "foreign law"? Yet, here we are with a conservative majority using foreign precedent to argue for deciding on favor of the administration...because it's convenient to the larger project of the conservo-corporate agenda of dismantling/neutering our public institutions.
8
@Citixen Not to mention these are the same folks who consider themselves strict adherents to the exact words of the constitution. It is mind blowing how transparent all this is.
3
Once again, the court reveals itself to be political, causing the public to lose more and more faith in our democratic institutions. What a mess.
7
I suppose we should just have the USAF fly over and count heads. Will probably be more accurate than the actual census at this point.
This nonsense is what happens when you let political operatives make decisions instead of career employees who actually know what they’re doing. Maybe this asking about citizenship is allowable under the constitution, but that doesn’t mean it won’t undermine the whole point of the census in the first place.
2
@Mr. Adams The political operatives know what they’re doing. They’re just doing things other than what the law tells them to do. Just ask Kavanaugh about that. He’s one of them.
1
I wish there were more information in this article about the rules, requirements, etc. around including the citizenship question. For example, if one simply leaves that question blank, is the entire form thrown out and not counted or how is it handled?
Also, and I mean this sincerely, what is the rationale for saying that people who are not legally present in the US should have government representatives? Putting partisan politics aside completely, isn't that a little hard to justify?
4
@L. Hoberman There are several justifications, outside of the obvious one that this is how the constitution is written: Non-citizens (documented or not) use resources and pay taxes; have children that are citizens; may very well become citizens in the 10 yr period before the next census; and I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that first come to mind.
3
This cynical manipulation of the U.S. Census for political gain makes me wonder if I should even bother to complete my form. Maybe if enough of us who live in red states boycott the next census, the politicians would stop messing around with it.
Given the likely Supreme Court outcome, does this mean that the question must always be included or that, depending on the administration that is in power at the time of the applicable census, the question can be included or excluded at its option? If it can be excluded at the relevant administration's election, then it seems that every 10 years, we can expect to see a shift in the number of Congressional seats for the states listed in the article.
2
Do Democrats not want to allow the question asked because the actual answer might reflect their shame of America? When my grandmother with her brothers came here from Norway they were proud to then call themselves Americans.
11
@John Doe This may be the least intelligent question ever. Shame of America? Huh?
We don't want it asked since its intended purpose is to produce a census which undercounts the actual population.
Whether you like it or not, the Founders wanted everyone counted. If you don't believe me read the Constitution. It's right there, early on in Article I. Every free person and nowadays we're all free. No restriction to citizens, no restriction based on whether one was here legally or not. Everyone. Simple as that.
9
@John Doe - When your ancestors came here they did not face an administration that was determined to remove everyone who they could from the country.
FDR used the census to round up the Japanese. Do you really expect that Trump will not use it to round up undocumented immigrants??
4
Jack, shame on America that its founders even had to specify free persons. What had they already done to the land of the free and the home of the brave to require that?
this is precisely why it's important to understand the ripple effect of a rigged election. People are put in positions of power and authority, who wouldn't be there, if not by a man who also shouldn't be in office but rather in jail. Meanwhile, policy changes should also be reinstated, or otherwise ruled null and void
14
Two ideas: one, organize to get all people of color in your district to respond to the census; and two, don't respond to it if you are a white person living in a conservative district.
3
This administration has clearly shown that it considers laws to be nuisances to be ignored at will.
In light of this, why should anyone expect the individual information from the census to be kept secret as required by law. The purpose of this was to ensure that there was no reason for people to lie and therefore allow accurate information to be obtained.
No doubt it is the goal of the Trump administration to make the census data essentially worthless except as a way to ensure Republicans retain as many seats in Congress as they can.
2
@Steve - "This administration has clearly shown that it considers laws to be nuisances to be ignored at will."
Isn't that how we got DACA? Didn't Arizona get sued by Obama's DOJ after the state felt it needed to protect it's Southern border because Obama directed the Feds to disregard our laws?
2
The Supreme Court has lost any legitimacy, what with Bawlin' Brett, Silent Cal and the goofball theory of originalism. Yet another casualty of our perverse variant of so-called conservatism.
4
The only way they can win power...
3
If this political sham is allowed I as a U.S. Citizen living in a very red state will refuse to file out the census.
5
Another nail in the coffin of our representative democracy
4
Trump and his Supremes can 'allow' it all they want. I won't answer the question. Or else, I'll just make some smart-aleck remark and move on - maybe I'll say I I'm a Martian. (I'm 70 and a natural-born citizen.)
2
It cannot be unconstitutional to ask a question that was on every census from the 1850s to 1960. The 1960s began our national border hemorrhage, and the only two amendments added to the Constitution since then have nothing to do with the census. If Democrats need illegals to insure they can "take over" states like Texas, there is something profoundly wrong with saying we should tolerate such a political putsch using non-citizens to achieve it.
12
@JOHN Non-citizens are not allowed to vote. Trump can claim that millions did but where's the proof? Heck, where's a single speck of evidence.
The question was last asked in 1950 and it seems that it was only ever asked on the long form census sent only to a rather small percentage of households.
The Constitution calls for an "actual enumeration" of "all free persons". Since we no longer have slavery that means everybody. No distinction based on citizenship. So anything that makes the census results less accurate in counting everybody who lives here is, indeed, unconstitutional.
4
@JOHN - Federal funds for infrastructure, education, even funds allocated for law enforcement and prisons, etc., are determined by the census results. All human beings, whether citizens or not, use the infrastructure and other public services. If there's a significant undercount, then it simply means MORE people having to function with less money and fewer services and less infrastructure, or with crumbling infrastructure.
In addition, businesses use the census to determine whether it's worth it to them to open a new business in a particular area. Undercounted areas will be negatively affected in that way as well.
1
Simple question. I say leave it.
8
I am pleased to answer the citizenship question.
15
Unauthorized aliens committed to the erosion of US law should be deported. They certainly should never be counted towards the apportionment of congressional representation.
13
@Swaz Fincklestein Read the Constitution. It says count everybody. Yes it does, check it out. Whether you like it or not doesn't matter. I don't like the Electoral College but it's what the Constitution mandates so I accept that Donald Trump is currently the actual President.
Of course many of you Republicans (including Trump) used to claim that Obama wasn't the President based on an untrue and completely unfounded rumor. Without a scintilla of evidence.
To me anyone making such a claim seems utterly unpatriotic. That's right me, a liberal Democrat, is questioning your patriotism. Being against a particular war (especially an undeclared war) is not, in any manner, shape or form, unpatriotic. Questioning the legitimacy of a clearly legitimate President is extremely unpatriotic.
2
Simply asking 'Where were you born?' gets the same information without the potential policing ramifications.
1
Not really! There are many naturalized citizens who immigrated legally to the states but born in other countries.
@Al
Exactly!
Knowing where each person was born tells the immigration story.
It's the naturalization question, the are you a citizen question, that might, in the hands of the evil minded, lead to mass deportation or, Lord help us, gas chambers.
The purpose of the census is not to check who votes, it is simply to count the population. Family historians 72 years form now, when this is public, will want to know the place of birth of their ancestors. :-)
1
If ever there was any doubt as to whether the SC has become just another Republican tool to limit non-white participation in the USA, it will be crushed when they vote lock step for Trump's dystopian world view.
4
There are about 13 million legal permanent residents (green card holders) in the US, according the the Dept of Homeland Security. There is no obligation for them to become citizens, but they are entitled to representation in Congress and use public transportation, thus need to be included in the census. I don't recall ever reading about this issue as it pertains to the citizenship question on the census. If there is also, no question about being a green card holder, how will these people be treated appropriately in the count?
2
@GF The Constitution says count everybody, no exceptions based on citizenship or on whether someone is here legally.
This question is designed to produce an undercount. It's designed to thwart the will of the Founders.
2
If the Supreme Court finds for the Administration, the 6.5 million anticipated undercount will have the predicted outcomes. A count is not correct if you undercount (I learned that in kindergarten). I have 8 digits on my hands is not an accurate picture (even if thumbs are different than fingers). So we are likely to wait 10 years to have another chance to account for the missing 6.5 million. By then these people will have had the time to become 13+ million. Of course the Supreme Court in ten years may be stacked the way it is now, willing to continue ghosting millions of people.
1
For anyone who disagreed with Kavanaugh's ascension to the bench, I think there's a good case to make that any supreme court decision that is 5-4 with him in the majority is illegitimate. If this case goes the way it looks that it will, I at least won't recognize it as law.
Public conversation in the US has no standards by which to assess institutional legitimacy -- that is, whether or not individuals should provide their consent to be governed; whether or not some supposed social contract holds. Government is a social process. Kavanaugh's nomination was an aberration and an abomination, and it's reasonable to say that this discrete act does not meet with one's basic standards for governmental institutions, and therefore its main effects should not be recognized or consented to. One needn't discount the entire US government or state governments in one action, and I think there's too often a tendency to see the questioning of institutions as an all-or-nothing act. Though it affects me personally very little, I don't consider any of the 5-4 decisions involving Kavanaugh to be legal judgements of the court. This looks like another one for that list. Mainly means not checking a box on a form, but there you go.
1
If the Constitution only requires an “actual enumeration” every 10 years then where does the Census Bureau get the authority to ask any other questions? The source of that authority probably tells us if the President has the authority on his own to add questions.
@EJS No doubt there has been legislation extending the census so as to produce useful information. There used to be a long form to produce even more useful information.
It does seem that the Executive Branch was delegated the authority to add questions by Congress.
But the presumable intent and clear-cut impact of this question is to produce an undercount. The Constitution calls for counting everybody (look for yourself, I did) and so the purpose of this question runs counter to the wishes of the Founders as expressed in our Constitution. I have read that there's legislation passed by Congress and signed into law that underlines this point. No matter, let's stick with the Constitution even without any additional legislation.
1
A nation of citizens, the rest guest workers or illegal immigrants. Better to know the truth than to estimate how porous the sovereignty. Simple math even Cortez could do.
7
Apparently Trumpist don’t (can’t?) read the constitution. The census has nothing to do with citizenship.
1
How could the Court agree to this question? In the year 2017 alone 752, 000 people became naturalized citizens.In 2016 they would have to say that they ere not a citizen but by 2017 they were.If you extrapolate this number of new citizens out over a ten year period it is obvious that if you require people to declare citizenship on one day in a ten year period you will have undercounted by thousands the number who may become citizens in that ten year period.I know the Supreme Court is ideological but surely they can count and realize that citizenship is not a static number- it changes by the thousands each year.It is idiotic to have someone designated as a non citizen one year when the next year they will become a citizen.There is no way this question can be lawful or reasonable.
1
@JANET MICHAEL
If you don’t know if you are a citizen, that’s a you problem. Otherwise, when you are asked or fill out a form indicate citizenship as of that date. Its not a hard question. Let the census bureau draw the conclusions.
2
@Shamrock—Show me where in the constitution the census requirement refers only to citizens.
It's a shame the court acts like a small version of Congress instead of acting like a non political body. If it has this question I will not fill it out.
2
"...Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state and a vehement opponent of unlawful immigration."
It's amazing how a major newspaper in the U.S. can depict someone in government as being out of the mainstream for opposing something which is unlawful.
It is the very definition of corruption to do otherwise.
7
@North Face So you think Ronald Reagan was corrupt?
BTW when did saying someone was vehement on some issue come to mean "out of the mainstream"? I must have missed that memo. Martin Luther King was vehemently in favor of civil rights.
It is amazing how followers of this “president” take anything he suggests as the way things are.
@North Face - Even red, red Kansas turfed Kobach out when he ran for governor. He lost by about 9 points. When someone is too extreme for KS, here's a hint: it means he really is too extreme.
1
As long as Neil Gorsuch occupies the stolen seat, the Supreme Court is illegitimate. Period.
3
As sickening as this is, let's be very clear: There will be a get out the count effort like no other, just as local communities have rallied to resist every other xenophobic policy that's been attempted during this era. This *will* backfire spectacularly.
3
scotus behaving just as trump intended them to....
and bush2 intended with roberts and alito
and mcconnell intended when he stonewalled obama
2
My ancestors came to this country before the Revolutionary War. I will not answer this question about citizenship.
2
I believe a government has the right to know who are citizens and who are not. The census is used for many things, most importantly for redistricting. Non-citizens should not count towards such a thing. It flies in the face of Federal immigration laws, etc. I think the case against is simply for control of congress. When coupled with ideas like eliminating the electoral system, doing away with the senate, expanding the Supreme Court it then becomes very clear that Liberals would like nothing more than a single-party central government.
7
@Cato - Our government as it was set up and as it currently operates is a highly anti-democratic institution, yet you claim to be worried about "fairness." The founders' unwise compromise allowed only 2 senators to state, regardless of population. If CA were to have the same proportion of senatorial representation as WY, CA would have about 100 senators. In 2016, Senate Democrats got 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans, yet Republicans kept the majority. In 2018, Senate Democrats got "only" 11.5 million more votes than Republicans, and Republicans gained seats.
And then there's the Electoral College, which allocates electoral votes based on the total number of representatives and senators a state has. That makes an EC vote from WY, for example, worth about 4 times as much as EC vote from CA.
And then of course there's gerrymandering, practiced primarily by Republicans. Evidence of that is the fact that in 2016, House Democrats got 3 million more votes than House Republicans, yet Republicans kept a 23 seat majority.
@Cato You may well believe that "Non-citizens should not count towards such a thing" i.e. redistricting, but it's what the Constitution calls for: an "actual enumeration" of "free persons", which since we no longer have slavery means everybody. You do believe in following the Constitution don't you Cato?
BTW were you against "single-party central government" in 2017 & 2018?
@Cato-You ignore the fact that 700,000 people legally become citizens each year-how do you propose to count them?
1
The addition of the Citizenship question is purely for the political purpose of stealing money, resources and representation from immigrant rich communities (overwhelmingly Democratic) to immigrant poor areas (mostly Republican). It clearly violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the spirit of the constitution. Any Supreme Court that ratifies such a question, essentially invalidates its own legitimacy as an impartial arbiter of law, but instead establishes itself as merely a political body to enforce partisan advantage
5
I have no problem answering a question about citizenship, which seems to me like a perfectly reasonable question. I am more offended that the government asks about race, which to me is highly inappropriate.
4
It's shocking that a country would want to know how many citizens it has in its country by conducting a census. I mean why would anyone think a census would be used for such purposes? Don't they know what the word census means and where it comes from?
Hint it comes from ancient Rome which conducted a count of its citizens.
5
@Ed Why in the name of all that's holy would we care about how ancient Rome conducted its political business?
How's about we care about how the Founders wanted us to conduct our government? It's not hard to find out, read the Constitution. It's right there, early on in Article I. We're supposed to apportion representation in the House by means of an "actual enumeration" of "free persons", nowadays that means counting everybody, not just citizens since we no longer have slavery. This is the main purpose of our census. The proposed question is designed to produce an undercount, thus undermining the very purpose of the census.
My comment here is not directly in response to this article (indirectly, yes - see the next paragraph), but rather to Joe Lockhart's column about how keeping President Trump in office will wind up destroying the Republican Party. Mr. Lockhart is wrong, or at least overly optimistic. Here's why: over time, the Democratic Party will identify itself more and more as the party of non-whites, due both to changing demographics and to the high degree of support that Democrats get from most non-white groups. This will leave an opening for the Republican Party to identify itself, more overtly than nowadays, as the party of whites, and will result in the Republican Party getting an even larger share of the white vote. This will keep the Republican Party at least competitive, and frequently victorious, at the federal level, not to mention in the states with small non-white populations. In other words, if you think politics today is racially polarized, there's a good chance "you ain't seen nothin' yet."
This does relate to the current debate over the citizenship question on the census because virtually all of those who would be affected by this question are non-white and more likely to be urban residents. If a disproportionate percentage of those affected by this question choose to not fill out the census form at all (which seems to be the working assumption), then this will skew the census results in a more rurally-oriented and Republican-leaning direction.
@Rick I think you're being too pessimistic. There's plenty of white folks like me who are so thoroughly repulsed by today's Republican party that there's no chance of us supporting them.
It only takes a sizable minority of whites to give the Democrats a majority and if the Republicans become even more a white identity party as you predict then they will have no chance of getting non-white votes.
1
An active campaign of responding but not answering the citizenship question would seem to be the best answer. Might even drive up participation by offering an impactful way of resisting. No one is arguing to reject responses (the "hanging chad") on the basis that not all answers were complete. The US has a history of census questions not properly or fully being answered. Just go back and look at census records from 119 years ago.
326
@oszone That's what I plan to do.
38
@oszone - I would certainly not answer the question, but are you sure that my form would be counted? That's my only concern!
13
@oszone Completely agree. Just don't answer the question. It's really not that difficult, and allows respondents to productively protest the question's importance.
29
If this (sabotage of the census) becomes yet another 5-4 decision against yet another cornerstone of our representative democracy (along with Citizen's United; Shelby; etc.), then it's tantamount to a coup.
1
@Mau Van Duren
We already had a coup - at the SCOTUS first then in the fraudulent POTUS election. And I doubt anything less than a coup will get rid of the vastly spreading cancer replacing all critical justices and divisions that run our government with foreign coup trump supporters. The census is just a new list of undesirables they want to be able to subjugate and ensure life long power.
This is clearly legal and constitutional. The law is explicit in granting the authority over the specific questions to the Executive Branch.
4
@David The Constitution is explicit that the purpose of the census is to count everybody. So a question designed to produce an undercount is designed to thwart the Constitutional purpose of the census.
Many additional questions have been added to the census in order to produce useful information. (Note how Ross lied in order to pretend this question was designed to produce useful information.) But a question which undermines the one purpose expressed in the Constitution is not permissible.
1
Not true. Plain and simple.
It's not so much the question that bothers me, it's what the government will do with the answer.
2
It is not a question for conservatives or liberals. It is the appropriate question to ask and record the answer by all Americans. If the verdict/decision is to have the question in 2020, those who do not want to answer truthfully, they should be free to do so but asked to pay a penalty and their answer recorded as non compliant or legal resident as the case maybe. I do not see a point in doing a census but not eliciting n answer to a critical question.
5
If we lived in saner, less polarized political times, we would:
1) Allow the question.
2) Make technical accommodations to account for the predictable undercounting.
3) Push for a bipartisan fix to gerrymandering.
4) And take numerous steps to ensure total enfranchisment of the nation's voters.
Instead, our political parties will fight tooth and nail to destroy one another.
112
@John
In a saner, less polarized time: the new secretary would come in, ask about this question. He would be told that it would produce an undercount. He would then say oh okay nevermind.
There is none of this 'technical accommodations to account for the predictable undercounting'. The law is clear. It must be a clear enumeration of all people living in the USA, not an undercount that you apply some sort of multiplier to based on how your question will be received.
39
@John
In saner, less polarized political times we didn't have one party systematically trying to undermine our democracy (gerrymandering, voter intimidation, removing the fairness doctrine in broadcasting, Citizens United/ corporate person-hood, right-wing fake news, etc., etc.). This is just another step toward the destruction of democracy.
48
@John a census is a census, not a sample. By definition a census includes everyone. It's not sampling and inferential statistics; one cannot make aadjustments. It's a census NOT a sample. They are formally different things.
36
"On Census Citizenship Question, Supreme Court’s Conservatives Appear United"
Your lead-in title is an academic example of bias. Perhaps "On Census Citizenship Question, Supreme Court Unites Along Party Lines".
This way you do not insinuate that it is somehow the conservative side as being wrong before readers get a chance to make that decision for themselves.
6
If there is nothing wrong with this question being added to the census why then did Wilbur Ross (aka Mr. McGoo) lie about why he included it? That's the whole story with the present administration and trump. a lie means a guilty conscience. The bullies of trump-land seek to disenfranchise people, punish blue states by withholding/lowering funding and causing blue states to lose seats. If the question is added, I'd like to see what left groups think the response should be. I thought of not answering the citizenship question and responding on the form that it is a question added for political reasons and the authorities can come to my house and I'll show them my birth certificate and passport. However, if doing that invalidates the whole form, I'm not going to do it.
Good, it's as reasonable a question as a lot of the others and there is no reason for anyone not to answer since not being a citizen does not necessarily make them an illegal immigrant. People opposed to this just don't want the government to have accurate immigration statistics to make informed decisions with.
3
Which, if I’m understanding from numerous experts in the media, goes directly to the contrary of what the original intention of the census was. How do “originalists” not understand that?
1
Conservatives apply constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Take note of the conservative ignorance of constitution on the matter of census while their belligerent hoarding of the second amendment.
2
The census also asks about race, income, sex and place of birth amongst other questions. None of these are enumerated in the Constitution as requirements of the census. Democrats are arguing the Citizenship question is not enumerated in the Constitution, I hope Democrats win so we have the precedent to throw all the other questions as well and just get back to a head count.
126
@mkm that is not at all what opponents of this question are arguing. The other questions do not depress participation or lead to an inaccurate count. If the citizenship question did not affect the accuracy of the census, it would not be an issue.
21
@mkm, you do not understand the point of the census. It's not just for a simple counting of people ('a head count'), but also to establish the characteristics of communities and what they might need (for example, determining the average length and time commuters take to get to work can show major infrastructure/ public transit problems that need to be corrected.) When you pay your taxes, that money needs to be allocated intelligently, and using Census data is one of the tools that governments have to determine areas of need. For you to think it should come down to a simple count is just .. well, simplistic.
4
@mkm The census doesn't ask about income or place of birth. That's the American Community Survey.
11
I don’t think illegal immigrants should be counted in the census because they should not be in the country to begin with.
7
@Sue - Well, I hope you live in an area that's undercounted then. It means your area will be serving all the human beings that live there with LESS money, meaning reduced services, less or crumbling infrastructure, inadequate emergency and police services, reduced education funding, and even fewer businesses deciding your area can support another branch of their business.
For those saying the census should count only citizens, here's the problem. Let's say CA wants to build a water treatment plant, and they use some federal money to do so. If they underestimate how many people the water treatment plant needs to accommodate, that's a problem. Another example: let's say Texas wants to build a new bridge and they underestimate the daily use of the bridge.
This is why an accurate count of all people needs to exist.
Not to mention that creating fear for people who are already struggling is, well, cruel. If you are that upset about illegal immigration, you should be demanding a question that asks employers if they use E-Verify and if they hire illegal immigrants.
396
@Barbara Thank you for this sane answer. Immigration is separate from this issue. Congress could easily pass immigration reform if the two sides would work on it, but they just yell at each other across the aisles instead of getting any work done.
10
@Barbara
Then perhaps CA would come to their senses and cooperate with the rule of law and get rid of people who are not supposed to be here.
And yes, we should eVerify everyone
22
@Barbara. E-verify shouldn't be a question, it should like being in the country illegally, the law. The fact that we as a society have winked at and encouraged people to come and stay in the country illegally then overlooked the social issues that naturally follow this kind of insanity only shows that immigration and its over haul (and not just increasing the levels) needs to be the number one priority in this country. The caravans that are now routinely headed to our southern border are proof that what we are doing is not working.
8
It seems the authors and commentators are conflating two different issues: an accurate census study, and the idea of legal/illegal immigration. Somehow in that latter point is a touchy subject of being able to vote, which in all countries is only available to citizens as it should be.
People can be counted in a proper census as citizens, PR, Working pass or other timed legal documents, or nothing at all. No issues.
Of these, only citizens can vote.
With this clarity, the only people who would have an issue with a simple census question would be illegal immigrants. As they should. PR etc should have no issues. Census is not relevant to their status in any way.
4
If the administration prevails in this case, I would encourage everyone who receives a census to either ignore that question or check Citizen regardless of the real status. If they want to rig the vote even further, why participate?
1
Per the Constitution, the purpose of the decennial Census is to count all persons. As a data analytics professional, I can tell you flat out a question like this will depress participation. If a client of mine had full particiaption as the goal, I would never allow them to include this question on technical grounds. The Census Bureau fields other surveys with large, representative samples. They could always field questions about citizenship status that way if they wanted info about that. Thus, the only reason the question is being fielded as part of the Census is to change how reps are apportioned, evading the Constitution.
5
The Constitution requires a census every ten years. It does not prevent the Congress from passing a law to conduct an additional census at any time: " The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." The operative word is "within."
So, if the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House after the 2020 elections, they can simply order a "do over" without the citizenship question.
@John Graybeard Did Congress add the citizenship question or is this something Teump came up with. If Trump cane up with it where’s his authority to do it.
For crying out loud, the rules say that any proposed question must be submitted for vetting and testing a full three years before the census. If nothing else, Ross missed the deadline and is short-circuiting the process. The Supreme Court is making a good case for letting itself be overhauled to abolish lifetime tenure and allow more justices on the bench.
6
In the final analysis, this is really a very simple yes/no constitutional question. Under the Constitution, does Ross have the authority to make the call, yes or no? Should be an easy decision for SCOTUS if they go solely by the Constitution leaving out the political leanings of the respective justices.
2
Since 1950 the census has not included the citizenship question. I am yet to hear any arguments that, in the absence of that question, the census count was inaccurate. Therefore, adding that question ADDs nothing to the count. Even though I am a citizen, I will leave that question blank in protest, and I urge every concerned citizen to do the same. It is clear why Republicans, whose numbers have been dwindling and who fear the fact that the US is becoming a "brown-er" society, want to do everything they can to try to square that circle.
5
I think a lot of commenters are (conveniently) forgetting that children, prisoners and immigrants (legal and illegal) are represented in Congress even though those demographics can't cast a vote. Reapportionment needs to accurately reflect the distribution of the entirety of the US population -- not just voting age citizens.
10
Race questions included in the census may cause some people to not answer or be confused, but these questions were pre-tested before any actual changes were made. The citizens question have not being tested and the experts in the census office have found that it will miscount not by the thousands but by millions of people, 120,000 persons per state to be exact. But, of course, leave it to this expert-less administration to create a problem where does not exist. This country is changing and no matter how the census is established it cannot be denied nor erased. However, to silenced these voices is an odd process to rewrite history when it is still not written. I hope SCOTUS is more reasonable in how it considers the constitution-hope, hoping...
6
@DAT Trump doesn’t need experts. Trump knows more about the census than anybody. He’ll have a big, beautiful census, better than any other census in the history of the world.
2
Are Democracy is unraveling at record pace. We are well on the way to permanent minority rule in this country. Expect the Democratic party to win tens of millions more votes at the national level year after year while the GOP keeps a stranglehold on all levels of the federal government. This has been a long time coming, and frankly, this is what our country deserves. We took our Democracy for granted and will soon lose it completely.
4
If the question on citizenship will tell us how many non-citizens are living in the country, then we should by all means also add a question on criminality and whether anyone in the house is a wanted criminal. It will be important to learn that information, as well.
4
So much for the impartiality of SCOTUS. It's just as partisan as the Senate and the House. Let's just call it the party-line vote that it is.
6
Consider a state where everyone is illegal. There are no citizens. If one interprets the Constitution as stating that this state will have proportional representation, then how is this supposed to happen when no one can vote?
the question would do damage to the fundamental purpose of the census, which is to count everyone in the nation.
What good is it to form a nation if you can’t even ask who is a member of that nation? It may as well not even exist and creatures should be left free to roam as they please.
4
What I don’t understand is we have 9 reasonably intelligent people deciding the issue. What could possibly motivate them to vote along with Trump? Is this man so powerful that even the SC is intimidated?
4
Asking someone if they're a citizen isn't unreasonable, if federal tax dollars are attached to the district based on the information collected, it would be good to know why so many unauthorized immigrants are living here and have our feckless Congress address it now with comprehensive reforms.
3
@Ron The undocumented workers are here because cheap-labor conservatives want to maximize profits without paying living wages or benefits, or dealing with union protections. This is the negative side of profit-is-god capitalism. From slave labor to child workers in sweatshops to “invisible” undocumented workers, this bottom-line pattern has been seen throughout U.S. history. And without fail, whenever criticism is leveled at this system, the laborers themselves are duplicitously blamed as the source of the problem.
2
As a citizen, just in defiance, if this goes through, I will be skipping the citizenship question.
I’m so sick of this administration!
8
I have a news flash for you. Any additional question on any survey hurts survey results. That's a fact. Undocumented people have nothing to fear here. The census will not be weaponized. Only the democrats weaponize government agencies.
6
Given the response of the conservatives on the court is clear we now have yet another political branch of the government. Instead of making excuses for Ross they should recognize his dishonesty. They care little about getting the constitutionally accurate number and want Trump to succeed.
3