Trump presses for contentious census citizenship question despite legal uncertainty

[rooster59]

Trump presses for contentious census citizenship question despite legal uncertainty

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: Balloons decorate an event for community activists and local government leaders to mark the one-year-out launch of the 2020 Census efforts in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S., April 1, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Friday refused to back down over its bid to put a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. census, meaning that a court case will move forward over whether officials were motivated by racial bias in seeking to add it.

 

The Department of Justice told Maryland-based U.S. District Judge George Hazel it has not made a final determination on whether to add the question even as President Donald Trump told reporters he is considering issuing an executive order to do it.

 

Hazel, who had asked for a final decision from the government by Friday afternoon on whether it intended to press forward, issued an order saying the case will now move ahead.

 

Civil rights groups and some states strongly object to the citizenship question proposal, calling it a Republican ploy to scare immigrants into not participating in the census. That would lead to a population undercount in Democratic-leaning areas with high immigrant populations.

 

They say that officials lied about their motivations for adding the question and that the move would help Trump's fellow Republicans gain seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures when new electoral district boundaries are drawn.

 

The Supreme Court on June 27 blocked Trump's first effort to add the question, faulting the administration's stated reason. The legal fight seemed to be over earlier in the week when the government said it would start printing census forms without the citizenship question. But the battle reignited on Wednesday when Trump reversed course via tweet.

 

"We're working on a lot of things including an executive order," Trump told reporters on Friday outside the White House as he left for his resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.

 

The U.S. Constitution specifically assigns the job of overseeing the census to Congress, limiting the authority of the president over it, which could complicate an effort to add the question via presidential missive.

 

The judge on Friday rejected the administration's request that the case be put on hold, saying that an inquiry into the racial bias allegation would be relevant even if the government comes up with a new rationale for adding the citizenship question.

 

"Regardless of the justification defendants may now find for a "new" decision, discovery related to the origins of the question will remain relevant," Hazel wrote, referencing the legal process for gathering evidence.

 

In May the challengers, including the American Civil Liberties Union, presented new evidence they said showed that the administration's plan to add the question was intended to discriminate against racial minorities.

 

Documents created by Republican strategist Thomas Hofeller, who died last year, showed he was instrumental behind the scenes in instigating the addition of the question.

 

Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that asking census respondents whether they are American citizens "would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats" and "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" in redrawing electoral districts based on census data.

 

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the notion that Hofeller was behind the administration decision to add the question was a "conspiracy theory."

 

Under current law, states draw new districts based on total population. The Supreme Court endorsed that approach as recently as 2016, while reserving judgment on whether counting total eligible voters would be legal.

 

Trump on Friday said the "number one" reason for adding the question was for the drawing of electoral districts, which is not the legal reason the administration originally gave for adding it.

 

He and his supporters say it makes sense to know how many non-citizens are living in the country. His hard-line policies on immigration have punctuated his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that administration officials had given a "contrived" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-census/trump-fumes-as-supreme-court-blocks-census-citizenship-question-idUSKCN1TS1BL rationale for including the question. The court ruled that in theory the government can ask about citizenship on the census and left open the possibility that the administration could offer a plausible rationale to add the question.

 

The administration had originally told the courts the question was needed to better enforce a law that protects the voting rights of racial minorities.

 

The census is used to allot seats in the House and distribute some $800 billion in federal services, including public schools, Medicaid benefits, law enforcement and highway repairs.

 

A group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations challenged the legality of the citizenship question, arguing among other things that the U.S. Constitution requires congressional districts to be distributed based on a count of "the whole number of persons in each state" with no reference to citizenship. Three different federal judges blocked the administration before the Supreme Court intervened.

 

Even if a citizenship question is not included, the Census Bureau is still able to gather data on citizenship, which the Trump administration could provide to states.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Alexandra Alper, Andy Sullivan and David Morgan; Editing by Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-06

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[expatfromwyoming]

Supreme Court ruled that administration officials had given a "contrived" rationale!!! Everything about this administration is contrived

[Tug]

Rest assured Donald will use this to divide us further

[neeray]

So what?

One more piece of litigation started by Donald and company. Who cares? He sure doesn't!

[bendejo]

Wouldn't it be something if ICE showed up at The Tower to take away Melania because of a glitch in her citizenship papers. 

 

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, bendejo said:

Wouldn't it be something if ICE showed up at The Tower to take away Melania because of a glitch in her citizenship papers. 

Hands off poor Melanoma

[Ozman52]

The number of citizens/non-citizens in a country is something I expect people would want to know, and a census is the perfect, anonymous way to determine that.

 

Australia asks that question in every census since 1911.

[Chomper Higgot]

Right wing talk radio hosts dictating Trump’s policies.

 

[ThaiBunny]

12 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

anonymous

No such thing. Just because your name isn't on the census paper it doesn't mean you can't be identified

[expatfromwyoming]

17 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

The number of citizens/non-citizens in a country is something I expect people would want to know, and a census is the perfect, anonymous way to determine that.

 

Australia asks that question in every census since 1911.

Anonymous????

Edited July 6, 2019 by expatfromwyoming

[ThaiBunny]

50 minutes ago, expatfromwyoming said:

Anonymous????

Given the level of other detail the census collects, including street and postcode, it's pretty easy for those with access to the raw data to join the dots. I believe the Australian Bureau of Statistics retains actual names for 6 months - at the last census there was some controversy when this period was revealed

Edited July 6, 2019 by ThaiBunny

[Thingamabob]

No reason whatsoever to delay the census. 

[lannarebirth]

I really don't see the problem here. The whole idea of the census is to get an accurate accounting of the make up of the American population. It's not justa body count but the chief record of American demographics. It is a VERY detailed questionaire. I would think whether or not one is a citizen, or a green card holder or something else would be valuable information.

 

If the information one gives confidentially could in the least bit put them in legal peril it's very easy to lie about where you live or indeed, who you are. Or you can avoid the whole thing altogether.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

I really don't see the problem here. The whole idea of the census is to get an accurate accounting of the make up of the American population. It's not justa body count but the chief record of American demographics. It is a VERY detailed questionaire. I would think whether or not one is a citizen, or a green card holder or something else would be valuable information.

 

If the information one gives confidentially could in the least bit put them in legal peril it's very easy to lie about where you live or indeed, who you are. Or you can avoid the whole thing altogether.

So, you support the inclusion of a question that would encourage people to lie in the census, or alternatively swerve the census,  thus undermining the validity to data in the census?

 

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

If the information one gives confidentially could in the least bit put them in legal peril it's very easy to lie about where you live or indeed, who you are. Or you can avoid the whole thing altogether.

That's the whole point of this debate. There are fears that large numbers of people will avoid completing the census, thus making the demographics wholly inaccurate and the statistics not valuable at all

[sqwakvfr]

Being a citizen or not is slowly becoming irrelevant in the US.  The future looks like the following; Open Borders, Free Healthcare for ALL, Drivers license for all, Free college, Universal Basic Income for all and eliminatiion of all agencies that enforce Immigration Laws.  Therfore why do I need a passport to enter the USA?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by sqwakvfr
Grammar

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

That's the whole point of this debate. There are fears that large numbers of people will avoid completing the census, thus making the demographics wholly inaccurate and the statistics not valuable at all

 

It will be valuable as far as serving citizens is concerned and of course that's the main thing. You wouldn't expect Thailand to count you, would you, when they are parsing up legislative districts?

[peteski1]

As with all data, to purpose, how it is collected, how it is kept, what is it is used for and by whom, these are the underlying concerns of today's world where civil right to privacy is increasingly challenged. The degree of controversy and more so that the POTUS would consider an executive order ... clearly he/they have no concern for anything but their own interests ... and clearly, by this blatant example of misuse and abuse of power, he/they have no real sense of the meaning of integrity where civil liberties are concerned. Assuredly, 100%, important demographics will avoid the census, no one in their right mind will willingly put themselves at risk. You have to wonder incredulously at the lack of intelligent forethought that has gone into this initiative.     

[TPI]

3 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

The number of citizens/non-citizens in a country is something I expect people would want to know, and a census is the perfect, anonymous way to determine that.

 

Australia asks that question in every census since 1911.

Yes, but they used to tear off your personal information and put it into another bag, separate from the census information!

[howbri]

The U.S. is a sovereign nation. They get to decide who comes and who doesn't. No different than any other nation. The communist democrats however want anyone to come who can vote for them because the American people have rejected them. And will again in 2020. Build the wall Donald and ask the citizenship question. America can and should.

[howbri]

44 minutes ago, peteski1 said:

As with all data, to purpose, how it is collected, how it is kept, what is it is used for and by whom, these are the underlying concerns of today's world where civil right to privacy is increasingly challenged. The degree of controversy and more so that the POTUS would consider an executive order ... clearly he/they have no concern for anything but their own interests ... and clearly, by this blatant example of misuse and abuse of power, he/they have no real sense of the meaning of integrity where civil liberties are concerned. Assuredly, 100%, important demographics will avoid the census, no one in their right mind will willingly put themselves at risk. You have to wonder incredulously at the lack of intelligent forethought that has gone into this initiative.     

News Flash!!! Illegals don't get protection of the U.S. Constitution. They are coming ILLEGALLY and are NOT citizens.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, howbri said:

News Flash!!! Illegals don't get protection of the U.S. Constitution. They are coming ILLEGALLY and are NOT citizens.

FACT FLASH.

 

The US Constitution protects the rights of everyone within the US. 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It will be valuable as far as serving citizens is concerned and of course that's the main thing. You wouldn't expect Thailand to count you, would you, when they are parsing up legislative districts?

When it comes to the government providing support infrastructure and services - Yes.

• Adequate roads, bridges and rail systems don't depend on what nationality you are.
• Water & sewage treatment plants, electrical & water services, garbage disposal don't distinguish nationality of its customers.
• Adequate housing and healthcare support doesn't matter as to nationality.
• Appropriate police, surveillance and public safety such as firefighting and emergency first responders don't ask about nationality.

If an elected legislator is to be effective in serving his community as a whole, non-citizens cannot be ignored. In the U.S. the Constitution is by and for "We The People" regardless of nationality, creed, race, etc. 

Practically speaking, should the Thai government ignore the number of foreign residents in cities such as Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Pattaya and Phuket in city and provincial planning needs?

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

I really don't see the problem here. The whole idea of the census is to get an accurate accounting of the make up of the American population. It's not justa body count but the chief record of American demographics. It is a VERY detailed questionaire. I would think whether or not one is a citizen, or a green card holder or something else would be valuable information.

 

If the information one gives confidentially could in the least bit put them in legal peril it's very easy to lie about where you live or indeed, who you are. Or you can avoid the whole thing altogether.

Your last line inadvertently gets to the point. At this state there is a huge amount of evidence that the reason the administration wants to include this question is to discourage the undocumented Hispanic population from participating in the census. In other words, its purpose is to generate an inaccurate tally.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It will be valuable as far as serving citizens is concerned and of course that's the main thing. You wouldn't expect Thailand to count you, would you, when they are parsing up legislative districts?

The constitutions specifically directs the census to count person not citizens. And no, it's not serving citizens when it comes to figuring out the need so various communities whose citizens are in one way or another affected by the presence of illegal aliens.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, expatfromwyoming said:

Supreme Court ruled that administration officials had given a "contrived" rationale!!! Everything about this administration is contrived

But it appears that the USSC accepted another contrived argument:

• the Trump administration was merely trying to “reinstate” the citizenship question in that (allegedly) between 1820 and 1950, the question was asked of all households.

The fact is that multiple censuses during that period had no citizenship question (1840, 1850, 1860, and 1880), and those that did include one did not direct it at every person in a household.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/citizenship-questions-are-not-historically-normal/593014/

Thankfully, the USSC's error in accepting this second contrived argument as presented by DOJ will, if POTUS Trump persists to appeal federal district and appeals court rulings should both rule against DOJ, have counter arguments from the Plaintiffs to correct its initial error of understanding that there was never any reinstatement of the citizen question.

[Thainesss]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Your last line inadvertently gets to the point. At this state there is a huge amount of evidence that the reason the administration wants to include this question is to discourage the undocumented Hispanic population from participating in the census. In other words, its purpose is to generate an inaccurate tally.

 

Well yeah you say this like its some kind of revelation. Of course we dont want illegal aliens counted on the census. That coveted tally of yours is also used to grant representation in the congress. Why the hell should illegal aliens get to bolster the democrats base. 

 

This shit is infuriating. I mean why eve have a country anymore if the left keeps this up.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Well yeah you say this like its some kind of revelation. Of course we dont want illegal aliens counted on the census. That coveted tally of yours is also used to grant representation in the congress. Why the hell should illegal aliens get to bolster the democrats base. 

 

This shit is infuriating. I mean why eve have a country anymore if the left keeps this up.

Well, what's even more infuriating is that the Constitution explicitly disagrees with you. 

[BobBKK]

What is WRONG with any country asking are you a citizen?  pc gibberish

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Well, what's even more infuriating is that the Constitution explicitly disagrees with you. 

 

Yeah like the left gives a shit about the Constitution.