Trump presses for contentious census citizenship question despite legal uncertainty

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Seeing that the classifications change so many times according to your comment. Couldn't it be reasonable to ask if they are a citizen or not.Similar to asking on many apps and questionnaires "Are you Caucasian  ,Hispanic,asian "etc etc

 

I found many questions on the census to be much more invasive than the question of citizenship.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I found many questions on the census to be much more invasive than the question of citizenship.

But of course those questions weren't being asked to lower the count. But if evidence could be produced that was the intent behind them, they should be eliminated.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Because if the motive is to reduce the count, then it runs contrary to the purpose of the census.

 

Motives aside, isn't the purpose to establish a proper representation for the American people? Surely illegal immigrants shouldn't figure into that. But that's not to say you shouldn't count them. You just have to classify them as such.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Motives aside, isn't the purpose to establish a proper representation for the American people? Surely illegal immigrants shouldn't figure into that. But that's not to say you shouldn't count them. You just have to classify them as such.

Unfortunately for you, according to the Constitution, proper representation is based on the number of people  - not the number of citizens - residing in a state.

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Motives aside, isn't the purpose to establish a proper representation for the American people? Surely illegal immigrants shouldn't figure into that. But that's not to say you shouldn't count them. You just have to classify them as such.

Under normal circumstances yes. But under Trump they may fear the information be used in other ways.

[bristolboy]

Just now, Sujo said:

Under normal circumstances yes. But under Trump they may fear the information be used in other ways.

Not under normal circumstances. The Constitution demands that an attempt be made to count everyone not just citizens and legal residents.

[lannarebirth]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Unfortunately for you, according to the Constitution, proper representation is based on the number of people  - not the number of citizens - residing in a state.

Yes, but non citizens have no standing. They are "non immigrants". Just as you have no standing in Thailand and are a "non immigrant". Do you think you are counted in Thailand's population for the purposes of apportioning legislative districts?

Edited July 8, 2019 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Unfortunately for you, according to the Constitution, proper representation is based on the number of people  - not the number of citizens - residing in a state.

There are many many acts and laws pertaining to the census that came after the writing of the constitution. It's pretty interesting.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Yes, but non citizens have no standing.They are "non imigrants". Just as you have no standing in Thailand and are a "non immigrant". Do you think you are counted in Thailand's poulation?

What do you mean they have "no standing". Standing is a legal term meaning that you don't have a dog in this fight. Clearly, non-citizens do.  The Constitution says so.

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Under normal circumstances yes. But under Trump they may fear the information be used in other ways.

If I was an illegal immigrant I would assume any information I might provide could be used against me. I'd be keeping a pretty low profile, regardless of who was president at the time.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What do you mean they have "no standing". Standing is a legal term meaning that you don't have a dog in this fight. Clearly, non-citizens do.  The Constitution says so.

Are you sure? What was the definition of a person then? Was a slave a person? Howdid one gaincitizenship then? Simply by being on the premises?

[bristolboy]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

Are you sure? What was the definition of a person then? Was a slave a person? Howdid one gaincitizenship then? Simply by being on the premises?

Yes. I'm assuming that the definition of a person was the same as now except for the question of slaves. The courts have consistently ruled that way. Slaves were specifically counted as 3/5 of a person. I don't know how one gained citizenship then. Don't see how it's relevant.

[expatfromwyoming]

 

The constitutionally mandated purpose for conducting the census is to reapportion Congress and, by extension, the Electoral College.

While the omission of the citizenship question may not prevent future attempts by the Trump administration and others to politicize the census and discourage some to participate, we can count on the groups who successfully fought the citizenship question to promote widespread participation in the census in communities across the country. All in all, the nation is the winner.