Shocker: Census to only count US citizens

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I fail to understand the protests of the Democrats on this.  The Census is meant to count our citizenry and one of the chief purposes is to apportion representation in Congress.  You can't just count everyone as if they are all citizens and grant some states representation based off of non-citizens?  WTH?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[AUDub 11,184]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I fail to understand the protests of the Democrats on this.  The Census is meant to count our citizenry and one of the chief purposes is to apportion representation in Congress.  You can't just count everyone as if they are all citizens and grant some states representation based off of non-citizens?  WTH?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Do you want a visit from ICE?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[homersapien 11,453]

Well, for one thing, the census is a intended to be a scientifically valid sample of population.

If you are a civil engineer - or otherwise involved in planning - you want to be making assumptions or calculations on the most accurate data available.

Or to put it another, allegorical way, even illegal immigrants s***t.  

Designing census questions in such a way that undercounts total population is problematic for planning purposes.

Classification of the population should be secondary to an accurate count.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I fail to understand the protests of the Democrats on this.  The Census is meant to count our citizenry and one of the chief purposes is to apportion representation in Congress.  You can't just count everyone as if they are all citizens and grant some states representation based off of non-citizens?  WTH?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Can you cite the Constitutional basis for your assertion?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Can you cite the Constitutional basis for your assertion?

I'll admit the wording is murky.  But do you believe that representation in Congress should be inflated by people who are here illegally?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'll admit the wording is murky.  But do you believe that representation in Congress should be inflated by people who are here illegally?

It’s not that murky. The founding fathers based it on all persons, including non-citizens.  In addition, Non-citizens may be here legally.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s not that murky. The founding fathers based it on all persons, including non-citizens.  In addition, Non-citizens may be here legally.

The founding fathers seemed to be speaking of those who were here legally.  Do you think those who have snuck in illegally should inflate the representation in Congress of the state in which they live?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The founding fathers seemed to be speaking of those who were here legally.  Do you think those who have snuck in illegally should inflate the representation in Congress of the state in which they live?

Whether they should or not, the Constitution says what it says. Your assertion in the OP is way off.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Whether they should or not, the Constitution says what it says. Your assertion in the OP is way off.

Ok, I'll modify my view.  The Constitution appears to be referring to counting people who are here legally.  Do you believe that those who are here illegally should count toward Congressional representation?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, I'll modify my view.  The Constitution appears to be referring to counting people who are here legally.  Do you believe that those who are here illegally should count toward Congressional representation?

There are arguments either way. I suspect asking the question in the census isn’t for that purpose because that’s not what the Constitution says. But if I’m undocumented and my wife and 3 kids aren’t, you’ve just missed counting 4 citizens.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There are arguments either way. I suspect asking the question in the census isn’t for that purpose because that’s not what the Constitution says. But if I’m undocumented and my wife and 3 kids aren’t, you’ve just missed counting 4 citizens.

That's true.  The problem seems to be that it's all or nothing.  You either count none of them, and thus also don't count some citizens or you count everyone including a bunch of folks who honestly shouldn't be counted toward representation.

[AUcivE09 582]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, for one thing, the census is a intended to be a scientifically valid sample of population.

If you are a civil engineer - or otherwise involved in planning - you want to be making assumptions or calculations on the most accurate data available.

Or to put it another, allegorical way, even illegal immigrants s***t. 

Designing census questions in such a way that undercounts total population is problematic for planning purposes.

Classification of the population should be secondary to an accurate count.

Just FYI - Census data is not used in civil planning. Sewers are designed using the count of single-family homes, multi-family homes, and businesses. Same for drinking water design. Roads are designed using axle counts. 

The only place I have encountered needing census data is in risk management planing and it is solely to put a number on a worst case scenario that would be inside the affected zone. The area outlined would be evacuated regardless of the count.  

[TexasTiger 13,026]

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's true.  The problem seems to be that it's all or nothing.  You either count none of them, and thus also don't count some citizens or you count everyone including a bunch of folks who honestly shouldn't be counted toward representation.

I suspect most undocumented folks avoid being counted anyway.

[stoic-one 1,549]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I suspect most undocumented folks avoid being counted anyway.

Wait, so what's the problem again? If they don't want to be counted anyway, aren't they count to avoid the census anyway?

Hasn't the citizenship question been on the long form census, which goes to 1 in 6 homes, for 130+ years anyway? Which BTW was removed by the last administration? Yes, no?

 

Regardless, people are still being counted, just not for the purpose of apportioning representation...

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I fail to understand the protests of the Democrats on this.  The Census is meant to count our citizenry and one of the chief purposes is to apportion representation in Congress.  You can't just count everyone as if they are all citizens and grant some states representation based off of non-citizens?  WTH?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Can you cite the Constitutional basis for your assertion?

Titan is correct on this. Perhaps you should read the federalist papers. Specifically, read No. 58 (Madison). 

[TexasTiger 13,026]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

Titan is correct on this. Perhaps you should read the federalist papers. Specifically, read No. 58 (Madison). 

Read the Constitution.

[PUB78 1,363]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I suspect most undocumented folks avoid being counted anyway.

That is true. My wife did work on the 2000 Census and covered a Birmingham area with lots of Hispanics. She has some good stories to tell.

[channonc 466]

This article helps explain why we need to count everyone, not just citizens.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Read the Constitution.

I have. Numerous times. But Constitutional issues often require familiarity with more than just the text itself. I mean geeshe have you ever read a Supreme Court opinion? In this instance the backdrop of society when it was written, including the materialized thoughts of the very men who penned it, is kind of important.

You’re acting like a strict constructionist. It’s a disfavor to your liberal homebase. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

NolaAuTiger is correct when ever a case is presented to the Supreme court for review the Justices look at the actual wording of the Constitution, the writings of the people who penned the Constitution, previous rulings on similar subjects, that have been handed down, etc. In most cases the strict constructionists find papers supporting a strict interpretation. It is only when there is a lack of prior information from the people who penned the constitution or from Jurists that want to indirectly re-write the Constitution without going through the amendment process that the law can be changed.

He documented why Titan is correct in his interpretation. As for the accuracy of the count most illegals won't fill it out whether it asks for Citizenship or not as they don't trust government on the whole. Most illegals in the Hispanic community associate Government with La Migra (Immigration Service) and as such will avoid filling things out if possible.

 

[TexasTiger 13,026]

20 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

NolaAuTiger is correct when ever a case is presented to the Supreme court for review the Justices look at the actual wording of the Constitution, the writings of the people who penned the Constitution, previous rulings on similar subjects, that have been handed down, etc. In most cases the strict constructionists find papers supporting a strict interpretation. It is only when there is a lack of prior information from the people who penned the constitution or from Jurists that want to indirectly re-write the Constitution without going through the amendment process that the law can be changed.

He documented why Titan is correct in his interpretation. As for the accuracy of the count most illegals won't fill it out whether it asks for Citizenship or not as they don't trust government on the whole. Most illegals in the Hispanic community associate Government with La Migra (Immigration Service) and as such will avoid filling things out if possible.

 

Your analysis doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution never limited the census to voters or even free persons. It intentionally did not.

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Your analysis doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution never limited the census to voters or even free persons. It intentionally did not.

There is no way the Constitution or any legal document looks at every eventuality and spells it out. If it did they would still be writing the Constitution that is the reason NolaAUTiger pointed you to a particular Federalist paper so that intent could be determined.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

23 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

There is no way the Constitution or any legal document looks at every eventuality and spells it out. If it did they would still be writing the Constitution that is the reason NolaAUTiger pointed you to a particular Federalist paper so that intent could be determined.

Have you even read the Constitutional provision addressing the census?

[AU64 10,122]

By and large the OP headline is false.   The census will count everyone who fills out the form....but for a number of good reasons the government would like to know how many non-citizens are living in this country too.   That's the issue.   

As for the Constitution, don't think it was the intent of the census to figure out how many toilets are in the average household......and about a hundred other seemingly private things that the government wants us to share with them. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

There is no way the Constitution or any legal document looks at every eventuality and spells it out. If it did they would still be writing the Constitution that is the reason NolaAUTiger pointed you to a particular Federalist paper so that intent could be determined.

Yep. One need look no further than common footnotes cited in SCOTUS opinions. Extra-textual sources are considered often, when appropriate.