Trump administration denies deceit in census citizenship fight

[Ozman52]

Other countries ask citizenship in their census, including UK (recently), Canada and Australia. In the USA doing the same somehow becomes a political conspiracy, but only to be expected when judges, police and even some dog-catchers are elected or political appointees.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Ozman52
spelling

[elmrfudd]

13 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Congressional seat district and apportionment are decided by total population, regardless of status. That's the way it is, and has been in modern times.

 

But when election time comes, only citizens are legally entitled to vote.

 

That's the way it's been under both Republican and Democratic administrations. It's only the Trump admin now that's trying to push immigrant communities out of the Census. A tally that they're legally supposed to be counted in under federal law.

 

asking citizen status does not "push out" anybody, it is a statistical tool  used by the commerce dept.

 

so you worry about what they are "legally supposed to be counted in under federal law"

but want to ignore the illegal federal crime they committed. IRONY ALERT

 

then you want to use these numbers to get more congressional power...sorry "representation"

 

just a question here, do you think it would be important to get a measure of exactly

how many illegal aliens are in the country? regardless of you wanting them all to be granted

legal status?

 

It has to be nearly 20 million at least, which further emphasizes the incompetence of our

immigration laws and regulations as well as our congress.

[Blue Muton]

7 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

asking citizen status does not "push out" anybody, it is a statistical tool  used by the commerce dept.

 

so you worry about what they are "legally supposed to be counted in under federal law"

but want to ignore the illegal federal crime they committed. IRONY ALERT

 

then you want to use these numbers to get more congressional power...sorry "representation"

 

just a question here, do you think it would be important to get a measure of exactly

how many illegal aliens are in the country? regardless of you wanting them all to be granted

legal status?

 

It has to be nearly 20 million at least, which further emphasizes the incompetence of our

immigration laws and regulations as well as our congress.

as well as your congress.....and president.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

asking citizen status does not "push out" anybody, it is a statistical tool  used by the commerce dept.

 

Of course it does... The research has shown it does... Even the Commerce Department has said adding the citizenship question would likely reduce Hispanic participation in the Census.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/22/new-research-shows-just-how-badly-citizenship-question-would-hurt-census/

 

Quote

What’s remarkable about the citizenship-question controversy is that none of this should be news to the Trump administration. After all, internal census analyses have already estimated that the citizenship question could decrease response rates among noncitizens by nearly 6 percent.

 

If you don't like the way the current Census system is administered, I'll make you an offer...

 

I'll agree to drop undocumented resident from the Census, if you'll agree to drop all the racists and illiterate rednecks out there.... of which Trump of course would be included in the former category.

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

11 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

asking citizen status does not "push out" anybody, it is a statistical tool  used by the commerce dept.

 

so you worry about what they are "legally supposed to be counted in under federal law"

but want to ignore the illegal federal crime they committed. IRONY ALERT

 

then you want to use these numbers to get more congressional power...sorry "representation"

 

just a question here, do you think it would be important to get a measure of exactly

how many illegal aliens are in the country? regardless of you wanting them all to be granted

legal status?

 

It has to be nearly 20 million at least, which further emphasizes the incompetence of our

immigration laws and regulations as well as our congress.

as well as your congress.....and president.

so the previous presidents are not responsible?

[kamahele]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

well, since this question has been asked before on censuses and it clearly states: 

 

"a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated."

 

 

do you need any further explanation? or do you need time to comprehend what the term "gathering of other statistics mean"?

 

or does it offend you that it would be a good statistic to know just how many actual citizens there are?

It gives Congress the authority to collect the statistics, not the census bureau. 

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

If you don't like the way the current Census system is administered, I'll make you an offer...

 

I'll agree to drop undocumented resident from the Census, if you'll agree to drop all the racists and illiterate rednecks out there.... of which Trump of course would be included in the former category.

wait, this question was asked before, was it racist illiterate rednecks making these decisions before? you do know the constitutions allows

for additional information to be asked, as deemed necessary of course, being the intellectual type you are.

 

point is, it is up to the CURRENT administration to decide, not you or me. you can get emotional about it or get over it. or you can

make stupid assumptions about racism or "illiterate rednecks"

 

do you want an accurate count of population and citizen status or not? if you want to ignore an accurate count of 

all the population and their status, why, because in your singular opinion it is racist to want to know?

 

how can any solution to years of mass legal immigration be addressed if you do not know the amount of people? any

solution like temporary legal status or a path to legal status can not be done without knowing this number. but you will

just make another ignorant assumption about racism or rednecks, so go for it.

[elmrfudd]

7 minutes ago, kamahele said:

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

well, since this question has been asked before on censuses and it clearly states: 

 

"a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated."

 

 

do you need any further explanation? or do you need time to comprehend what the term "gathering of other statistics mean"?

 

or does it offend you that it would be a good statistic to know just how many actual citizens there are?

It gives Congress the authority to collect the statistics, not the census bureau.

uh....do you know who collects the data?

 

 

i'll wait why you figure this out

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

do you want an accurate count of population and citizen status or not?

 

I want an accurate count of the population for starters... And it's clear that by including the citizenship question, the accuracy of the Census and its demographic info will be diminished.  And that demographic profile of the U.S. is what the Census is for.

 

In this instance, Trump and Co. are simply trying to monkey with the census questions in a way they believe will end up giving them a political advantage, and in the process, harming the accuracy of the Census information itself.

 

Whether you like it or not, legal resident non citizens and undocumented residents, along with everyone else, are entitled to be counted and represented in the Census. And since the Republicans can't change that, they're simply turning to a political ploy to sabotage the accuracy of the results in their favor.

 

[elmrfudd]

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I want an accurate count of the population for starters... And it's clear that by including the citizenship question, the accuracy of the Census and its demographic info will be diminished.  And that demographic profile of the U.S. is what the Census is for.

 

In this instance, Trump and Co. are simply trying to monkey with the census questions in a way they believe will end up giving them a political advantage, and in the process, harming the accuracy of the Census information itself.

 

Whether you like it or not, legal resident non citizens and undocumented residents, along with everyone else, are entitled to be counted and represented in the Census. And since the Republicans can't change that, they're simply turning to a political ploy to sabotage the accuracy of the results in their favor.

 

so you side step the citizen status again,

 

 

i will lay it out for you again:

 

It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census.

 

the census bureau works for the treasury dept. full stop.

 

you can try to twist this fact to meet your assumptions, and I am sure you will. 

 

they are not "undocumented residents", they are illegal aliens, it does not matter what made up term you try to use to justify the illegal status and

the disregard and disrespect for legal immigrants you seem to favor.

Edited June 4, 2019 by elmrfudd

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

21 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

they are not "undocumented residents", they are illegal aliens, it does not matter what made up term you try to use to justify the illegal status and

the disregard and disrespect for legal immigrants you seem to favor.

 

And both groups are legally entitled to be fully counted in the U.S. Census, and that's been the rule for decades, despite the Trump Admin's attempt to sabotage an accurate counting of both the legal and undocumented immigrant communities.

 

The main purpose and law of the Census is to count EVERYONE... not just the citizen or non citizen groups or any particular ethnic groups that you or anyone else may favor or disfavor. By adding a citizenship question that has NOT been part of the U.S. Census for something like 50+ years, that purpose and its accuracy would be sabotaged.

 

Because undocumented residents and even legal resident non-citizens probably don't (and shouldn't) trust the Trump Admin to not share their Census answers with U.S. Immigration. And thus, would either not participate in the Census or not give truthful answers, either way, sabotaging the count's accuracy.

 

--full stop--

 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[elmrfudd]

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

26 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

they are not "undocumented residents", they are illegal aliens, it does not matter what made up term you try to use to justify the illegal status and

the disregard and disrespect for legal immigrants you seem to favor.

 

And both groups are legally entitled to be fully counted in the U.S. Census, and that's been the rule for decades, despite the Trump Admin's attempt to sabotage an accurate counting of both the legal and undocumented immigrant communities.

 

The main purpose and law of the Census is to count EVERYONE... not just the citizen or non citizen groups or any particular ethnic groups that you or anyone else may favor or disfavor. By adding a citizenship question that has NOT been part of the U.S. Census for something like 50+ years, that purpose and its accuracy would be sabotaged.

 

Because undocumented residents and even legal resident non-citizens probably don't (and shouldn't) trust the Trump Admin to not share their Census answers with U.S. Immigration. And thus, would either not participate in the Census or not give truthful answers, either way, sabotaging the count's accuracy.

 

--full stop--

 

did i ever say they weren't "entitled" to be counted?

 

and how does not answering the citizenship question give you this  "accurate counting of both the legal and undocumented immigrant communities"

if they do not ask the question? is it by osmosis or mind reading? or are you going to pretend this is not an imporatant

statistic to be aware of?

 

but hey, why not not make a few more ignorant comments about racism or illiterate rednecks to feed the narrative.

Edited June 4, 2019 by elmrfudd

[Blue Muton]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

so the previous presidents are not responsible?

Don't put words in my mouth. 

 

That aside, we both know that the previous president was sadly restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles.

[elmrfudd]

7 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

so the previous presidents are not responsible?

Don't put words in my mouth. 

 

That aside, we both know that the previous president was sadly restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles.

so when Obama had a super majority in the senate, unlike this president it was an obstacle?

 

just to reiterate your incorrect and remarkably wrong statement:

 

Obama had a Democratic House for 2 years and a Democratic Senate for 6 years, with 178 days where he had a filibuster-proof majority during his first two years.

 

please get your facts straight before posting

Edited June 4, 2019 by elmrfudd

[Blue Muton]

20 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

so when Obama had a super majority in the senate, unlike this president it was an obstacle?

 

just to reiterate your incorrect and remarkably wrong statement:

 

Obama had a Democratic House for 2 years and a Democratic Senate for 6 years, with 178 days where he had a filibuster-proof majority during his first two years.

 

please get your facts straight before posting

How selective you are, way over the line when it comes to being disingenuous. 

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

25 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

so when Obama had a super majority in the senate, unlike this president it was an obstacle?

 

just to reiterate your incorrect and remarkably wrong statement:

 

Obama had a Democratic House for 2 years and a Democratic Senate for 6 years, with 178 days where he had a filibuster-proof majority during his first two years.

 

please get your facts straight before posting

How selective you are, way over the line when it comes to being disingenuous.

look, you told a complete falsehood, not me. then you call me disingenuous? amazing

 

here is your false statement, that you left out:

 

"That aside, we both know that the previous president was sadly restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles."

 

now that is being selective

[Blue Muton]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

look, you told a complete falsehood, not me. then you call me disingenuous? amazing

 

here is your false statement, that you left out:

 

"That aside, we both know that the previous president was sadly restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles."

 

now that is being selective

Are you seriously trying to pretend that:

 

Republicans did not block Obama's legislation.

 

or that:

 

Republicans did not control the house for the first two years of Trump's presidency?

[elmrfudd]

14 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

18 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

look, you told a complete falsehood, not me. then you call me disingenuous? amazing

 

here is your false statement, that you left out:

 

"That aside, we both know that the previous president was sadly restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles."

 

now that is being selective

Are you seriously trying to pretend that:

 

Republicans did not block Obama's legislation.

 

or that:

 

Republicans did not control the house for the first two years of Trump's presidency?

no, i am merely pointing out your blatantly incorrect response that Obama was "restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles." while I pointed out Obama had a SUPER MAJORITY in the senate, that Trump has NEVER had. do I need to explain this any more?

do you understand what a super majority in the senate means?

 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by elmrfudd

[Blue Muton]

12 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

no, i am merely pointing out your blatantly incorrect response that Obama was "restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles." while I pointed out Obama had a SUPER MAJORITY in the senate, that Trump has NEVER had. do I need to explain this any more?

do you understand what a super majority in the senate means?

 

 

Thank you for accepting (by answering "no" to my previous questions) that my earlier post was indeed correct. You seem to be a little confused though as you once again claim it was incorrect. 

 

No need to keep parrotting "supermajority, supermajority", it in no way alters the facts that:

 

 

Republicans did indeed block (some of) Obama's legislation.

 

Republicans did indeed control the house for the first two years of Trump's presidency.

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, Blue Muton said:

18 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

no, i am merely pointing out your blatantly incorrect response that Obama was "restricted by a destructive, disruptive congress, unlike the current president who had a couple of years with no such obstacles." while I pointed out Obama had a SUPER MAJORITY in the senate, that Trump has NEVER had. do I need to explain this any more?

do you understand what a super majority in the senate means?

 

 

Thank you for accepting (by answering "no" to my previous questions) that my earlier post was indeed correct. You seem to be a little confused though as you once again claim it was incorrect. 

 

No need to keep parrotting "supermajority, supermajority", it in no way alters the facts that:

 

 

Republicans did indeed block (some of) Obama's legislation.

 

Republicans did indeed control the house for the first two years of Trump's presidency.

look, you made a blatantly false statement, not me. I pointed that out clearly with facts.

 

Accept it like a man.

 

Obama had a Democratic House for 2 years and a Democratic Senate for 6 years

 

get over it. your statement was wrong, take it  and learn from it, or keep up the denials.

your choice

[rosst]

I wonder if they have contemplated mandatory voting like in Australia and only registered voters can vote? 

I wonder what the political landscape would look like then? 

[ParadiseLost]

16 hours ago, rosst said:

I wonder if they have contemplated mandatory voting like in Australia and only registered voters can vote? 

I wonder what the political landscape would look like then? 

Australia is hardly relevant in any real-world comparison; the state of California alone has double the population for starters and the entire political system in Australia is rigged by self-serving narcissists.

 

Climate change is by far the most important factor affecting the country but the party who 'won' the recent election is the most anti-reform. Right-wing leaning, white privilege preservation is by far the main agenda.

 

Press freedom has been seriously compromised today for example and the treatment of asylum seekers is atrocious.

 

Best not to suggest the world should follow anything going on 'down under', it is a disgrace what the country has turned into, Donald Trump would fit really well there...