Jump to content

Supreme Court conservatives appear ready to OK Trump’s census citizenship question

JustBecause

By JustBecause
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13350

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Let’s talk about this bullshit about the upcoming census that some idiots in the Iranian-American community want to do and label us under a new category that ISN’T WHITE. I have sent blistering letters to the Iranian groups behind this bullshit. I am glad that it hasn’t been approved and I had a hand in doing so with my letter writing. Remember, I was the one with my letter writing crew that got the Titans games off the air on KEYE in favor of the Texans. I will ALWAYS select white as my race and always will. Idiots want us to grab on the minority POC gravy train. 

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-north-africa-race/

The important stuff 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 714
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

Hopefully people are starting to realize that the president "can" do whatever people let him do.   Our institutions are only as good as the people who run them.  The Senate has abdicated virtually all

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No, it's not. "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

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

yeah, so i have some unique insight on this, given that i worked for the 2010 census. immigrant populations, hell, even native spanish speaking citizens, are wary of the census, just as crazy fun

BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18424

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Let’s talk about this bullshit about the upcoming census that some idiots in the Iranian-American community want to do and label us under a new category that ISN’T WHITE. I have sent blistering letters to the Iranian groups behind this bullshit. I am glad that it hasn’t been approved and I had a hand in doing so with my letter writing. Remember, I was the one with my letter writing crew that got the Titans games off the air on KEYE in favor of the Texans. I will ALWAYS select white as my race and always will. Idiots want us to grab on the minority POC gravy train. 

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-north-africa-race/

How do you say “Clayton Bigsby” in Persian?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4096

Posted
Posted
On 4/23/2019 at 8:25 PM, SubliminalHorn said:

I guess I’m confused. The Constitution says every person should be counted. Not citizens, persons. So wouldn’t conservatives look at that immediately and say, sorry, unconstitutional? 

Does not suit party purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 978

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are they not still counting persons but also seeking to count a subset of citizens?

If they are asking a question (of dubious value, imo) that will most likely lead to an undercount of people, then no, they will not be "still counting persons".

Logic. How does it work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 978

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are they not still counting persons but also seeking to count a subset of citizens?

I haven't kept up with all the "nuances" of the posts in this thread, I freely admit, but if we're talking about the same subset of people with the census question - they aren't citizens, right? 

So, it's not a subset of citizens then. 

But the purpose of the census is to count people. All people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2019 at 1:13 PM, Jive Turkey said:

Correct.  But the concept of citizenship certainly existed in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment recognizes that all “persons” born in the U.S. “are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

However, section 2 states:

”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.”

Clearly, the drafters knew the difference between “citizens” and “persons.”  And they specifically used the word “persons” instead of “citizens” with respect to the counting of people to determine how representatives should be apportioned.

So the plain language argument should be that you count persons, not citizens, and adding a question about citizenship is antithetical to the 14th Amendment.

 

The second sentence of that section is a bitch.  It kind of reads that if a state refuses to let a person vote their apportioned lot of representatives is reduced by those numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16681

Posted
Posted
Are they not still counting persons but also seeking to count a subset of citizens?

Even you have to realize by now that if this admin says something publicly, it is nearly certain to be incorrect and/or an outright lie.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16681

Posted
Posted
Does the Court have the power to prevent the Executive branch from doing dumb ass things? 
That seems to be the legal issue.
I agree with the conservatives on the court. I don't agree that it's a good thing to do. 
But good =/= legal.

You can make argument that it wouldn't just be bad methodology, but that it would result in defrauding and disenfranchising people who live in states that would be undercounted. Which, let's be real, is the goal in the first place. I do think the court will ultimately come down with a ruling on line with your post though.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16681

Posted
Posted
Imo, this has little to nothing to do with showing up Ross to be a liar.
The law gives wide discretion to Ross. Just b/c it's dumb or may lead to an under count of hispanics isn't the key issue.
I don't know why dipshit states (unfortunately, Texas falls into this category for POLITICAL purposes) don't scream about this. Texas could lose a congressional seat!

Texas wants to lose that congressional seat.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
On 4/26/2019 at 7:19 AM, Asithappens said:

If they are asking a question (of dubious value, imo) that will most likely lead to an undercount of people, then no, they will not be "still counting persons".

Logic. How does it work?

Aren't Congressional seats based on population ?  If so knowing who's legally here, and not should be a factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26439

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Aren't Congressional seats based on population ?  If so knowing who's legally here, and not should be a factor. 

Not sure if I'm reading you right, but the claim is that this question will cause undercount and not accurately reflect the true population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 34404

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Aren't Congressional seats based on population ?  If so knowing who's legally here, and not should be a factor. 

They're based on the population in terms of "whole number of persons", not number of citizens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Not sure if I'm reading you right, but the claim is that this question will cause undercount and not accurately reflect the true population.

Per comments on NPR I heard last week yes, illegals would be afraid to say they were illegal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86927

Posted
Posted

Did you just come out of a coma? Yes, they are afraid an unscrupulous Trump government will target them.  I mean, say there's 30 non-citizens living in apartment building ABC.  Would surprise literally no one with a functioning brain when ICE shows up at the complex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Did you just come out of a coma? Yes, they are afraid an unscrupulous Trump government will target them.  I mean, say there's 30 non-citizens living in apartment building ABC.  Would surprise literally no one with a functioning brain when ICE shows up at the complex. 

Dude STFU.  Can you not have a civil conversation.  Or are you just a dick 24/7 ?  No need to answer it was rhetorical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

Maryland district judge just granted a motion to modify its order about the discriminatory motive behind the citizenship question.  That Republican gerrymandering guru died and all his papers are suddenly available.  He is the one that ghostwrote the DOJ's request to add the citizenship question (which is necessary for Ross to add it), and is clear in his internal memo that doing so would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in the redistricting process and would “provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.”

Dr. Hofeller, the dead crook, analyzed how his work would affect Texas specifically:

The use of CVAP as the population based would cause a loss of relative population (and, thus districts) in the Greater Dallas/Ft. Worth Area (-.7 districts overall), with the greatest loss in Dallas County (1.7 districts). Harris County and its suburbs would lose relative population (1.7 districts overall), with a loss of 1.9 districts being slightly offset by the gain in the surrounding suburban counties. The greatest loss would be in South Texas, El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley which would lose 2.6 districts overall. All other regions of the State would enjoy relative gains in population, with the greatest gains being in Central as well as West Texas’ rural and semi-rural counties.

The plaintiffs won on APA violation and Enumeration Clause, but lost on Equal Protection.  Now it looks like they are about to win on equal protection too.

 

It's already on appeal at the 4th Circuit, and the judge has ordered that the 4th Circuit be notified that he is changing his order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9918

Posted
Posted

Nothing is stopping the person from telling the truth and marking illegal on the census. 

You are making excuses for those that don’t want to follow our rules and laws. 

I do agree though, having ignored our immigration laws in the first place, why do they give a shit about our census? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Nothing is stopping the person from telling the truth and marking illegal on the census. 

 

Take it up with Dr. Hofeller, whose studies say that it is a statistical certainty they answer rate will be reduced.  Which is the exact basis for asking the question.  

 

The task of the census is to count 'people.'  Your government is intentionally choosing a path that is statistically certain (intentionally) to miscount people.  It is doing its job poorly specifically because it will serve to detriment the Hispanic population.  You need to read the underlying documents so you can understand what it is you support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Take it up with Dr. Hofeller, whose studies say that it is a statistical certainty they answer rate will be reduced.  Which is the exact basis for asking the question.  

 

The task of the census is to count 'people.'  Your government is intentionally choosing a path that is statistically certain (intentionally) to miscount people.  It is doing its job poorly specifically because it will serve to detriment the Hispanic population.  You need to read the underlying documents so you can understand what it is you support.

Is it legal to not fill out the census, do we have a choice? @hayden_horn Are they obstructing justice by not answering?

Edited by zork
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

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. However, the Website for the U.S. Census Bureau points out that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 effectively increased these minimum fines to $5,000.

Seems like this could be a real dollar bonanza if those that won't be counted won't be counted.  

Quote

Americans must answer U.S. Census Bureau survey by law, though agency hasn't prosecuted since 1970. ... The letter said: "Because you are living in the United States, you are required by law to respond to this survey." Cole gave us a copy of a bureau envelope with this nudge outside: "Your response is required by law."Jan 9, 2014

 

Edited by zork
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29218

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Take it up with Dr. Hofeller, whose studies say that it is a statistical certainty they answer rate will be reduced.  Which is the exact basis for asking the question. 

yeah, it's one thing to be slimy.  it's another thing to be slimy when a document exists entitled, "how to be slimy on purpose and have it benefit you".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looks like the undercount worry is a canard as well:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/19/603629576/skipping-the-2020-census-citizenship-question-youll-still-be-counted

Quote

"We process many surveys with incomplete responses. The census [was] certainly one of those [surveys] in the past. It will be in the future," the bureau's acting director, Ron Jarmin, testified on Capitol Hill during a House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee hearing on the 2020 census.

Asked by Democratic Rep. Grace Meng of New York whether people who don't fill out the citizenship question on the census form would be counted, Jarmin replied, "Yes, but we would definitely encourage people to fill it out as completely as possible."

...

 

Edited by zork
added ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, it's one thing to be slimy.  it's another thing to be slimy when a document exists entitled, "how to be slimy on purpose and have it benefit you".

yeah.  equal protection cases are tough.  they always have to rely on 'disparate impact' theory.  "we don't know why you did this policy, but we notice that it always seems to hurt just black population."  That's because it is so rare to have actual direct evidence of intent.  "we know why you did this.  you just said 'imma go hurt black people with my new law.'"  But here we actually have the direct evidence of intent here!*

 

 

*n.b.  on second thought we shouldn't act so surprised of having direct evidence of racial motivation in a world where we elected a guy that campaigned on 'i'm going to stop letting muslim people in the country' (everyone cheers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90543

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, zork said:

Seems like this could be a real dollar bonanza if those that won't be counted won't be counted.  

I did the census thing 20 years ago.  I asked a manager about it (she was in her 60s), and she said they didn’t force/prosecute people for not returning them, because they would run into backhills types, sovereign citizen types these days, who spooked the shit out of everybody. The kind that has a shotgun leaning against the doorframe.   Plus, people running scams (some municipalities had stricter rules on household occupancy, etc.), criminals, illegal aliens, etc..  She said they could access some public records (school enrollment, etc.) and still get it fairly accurate.  Or they would send somebody by, and if the person who answered refused, they would send different people by every so often, and they would try to count the people they saw when the door was answered, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Foosters said:

Holy shit you're not very good at the whole "thinking" thing, are you?

What I think is immaterial.  NPR is saying we will be counted whether we respond or not.  The law says if you don't respond you will be fined.  Simple really.  Unless you have government officials who are choosing not to follow the law.

Why won't they fine those who won't answer the census?  Who gets to decide who is fined and not fined for not answering?  It seems we have a bigger undercount problem than is being discussed on this thread if the government officials in charge of the local census are not fining those who won't fill out the forms.  Or maybe it isn't a big deal and NPR is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30228

Posted
Posted

Going beyond the obvious discriminatory aspect of trying to ensure an undercount of residents to effectively reinforce our currently gerrymandered political districts, what they're attempting to do would also fuck up a lot of business decisions that are reliant on an accurate assessment of the population. While there are a ton of private data providers out there that businesses subscribe to, such as EMSI for example, the foundation of all their market data is the federal census.

Are you pissed that HEB is too crowded when it's *hypothetically* ever opened? If so, blame the bad data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
berlinerbaer

berlinerbaer 692

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, zork said:

What I think is immaterial.  NPR is saying we will be counted whether we respond or not.  The law says if you don't respond you will be fined.  Simple really.  Unless you have government officials who are choosing not to follow the law.

Why won't they fine those who won't answer the census?  Who gets to decide who is fined and not fined for not answering?  It seems we have a bigger undercount problem than is being discussed on this thread if the government officials in charge of the local census are not fining those who won't fill out the forms.  Or maybe it isn't a big deal and NPR is right.

476.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

476.gif

Seems like it isn't new, amirite?  12 million undocumented at the new rate of $5k if you don't fill out the census would likely pay for lots of detention meals and medical care.  Kind of the pay it backward method for those that got here sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2019 at 4:36 PM, Iconoclast Texan said:

Let’s talk about this bullshit about the upcoming census that some idiots in the Iranian-American community want to do and label us under a new category that ISN’T WHITE. I have sent blistering letters to the Iranian groups behind this bullshit. I am glad that it hasn’t been approved and I had a hand in doing so with my letter writing. Remember, I was the one with my letter writing crew that got the Titans games off the air on KEYE in favor of the Texans. I will ALWAYS select white as my race and always will. Idiots want us to grab on the minority POC gravy train. 

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-north-africa-race/

This post explains a lot. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
relapse98

relapse98 634

Posted
Posted (edited)

Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt

Quote

WASHINGTON — In a setback for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected its stated reason for adding a question on citizenship to the census, leaving in doubt whether the question would appear on the census forms sent to every household in the nation next year.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question “appears to have been contrived.” But he left open the possibility that it could provide an adequate answer.

Quote

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that executive branch officials ordinarily have broad discretion to make policy judgments. But he said the record in the case demonstrated that Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, had not given a full and accurate account of his decision to add the question.

They're saying you lied, slipper boy.

Edited by relapse98
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...