Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Supreme Court appears ready to bless GOP’s political manipulation of the census

So depressing.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed ready on Tuesday to allow the Trump administration to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census, which critics say would undermine its accuracy by discouraging both legal and unauthorized immigrants from filling out the forms.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that adding the question would do damage to the fundamental purpose of the census, which is to count everyone in the nation.

“There is no doubt that people will respond less,” she said. “That has been proven in study after study.”

By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might not be counted.

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the Trump administration, acknowledged that the question could depress participation. But he said the information it would yield was valuable.

“You’re always trading off information and accuracy,” he said.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that questions about citizenship had been asked on many census forms over the years and were commonplace around the world.

But by the end of the arguments, which lasted 80 minutes instead of the usual hour, the justices seemed divided along the usual lines, suggesting that the conservative majority would allow the question.

Much of the argument concerned statistical modeling. “This gets really, really technical,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.

The federal government has long gathered information about citizenship. But since 1950, it has not included a question about it in the census forms sent once a decade to each household. Adding it could reduce Democratic representation when congressional districts are allocated in 2021 and affect how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending are distributed.

Courts have found that Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas could risk losing seats in the House, and that several states could lose federal money.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 58April 23, 2019 9:47 PM

[quote] the fundamental purpose of the census, which is to count everyone in the nation.

I have to disagree with Sonia on the fundamental purpose of the census. It's about allocation between the states of congressional districts. That is relevant to citizens, not guests or illegals.

by Anonymousreply 1April 23, 2019 6:22 PM

Of course. Don’t lose elections if you want to win court decisions.

by Anonymousreply 2April 23, 2019 6:30 PM

Fuck.

by Anonymousreply 3April 23, 2019 6:35 PM

[quote]I have to disagree with Sonia on the fundamental purpose of the census. It's about allocation between the states of congressional districts. That is relevant to citizens, not guests or illegals.

You are ignorant. The census is explicitly about counting people, not citizens. It is used for far more than apportioning seats in the House.

by Anonymousreply 4April 23, 2019 6:40 PM

I am a Democrat, but I believe census workers should be able to ask such a question. Anyone here that isn't a citizen should be considered a guest for business or personal reasons, they are not voting citizens. House seats should be divided up based on the number of citizens, not general persons. If California wants to open the flood gates to south America and Mexico then so be it, but they shouldn't be rewarded extra congressional seats.

I also understand that this is a loaded question meant to intimidate, but I still fall into the bucket that believes that the government has a right to ask.

by Anonymousreply 5April 23, 2019 6:43 PM

Not when the SOLE purpose of the question is to discourage people from participating for the sake of artificially expanding the power of the President’s party and hurting areas that support Democrats (in terms of resource allocation). That’s what the evidence shows motivates the question.

The Census was never about counting citizens. The Constitution says it is to count Persons and expressly includes non-citizens in the count.

by Anonymousreply 6April 23, 2019 6:51 PM

It not just about house seats, and imo California won’t be the most impacted state. The trends in immigration are clear immigrants from south of the border are heading to the south and increasingly the Midwest. Immigration to California is increasingly Asian and they are more likely to be illegal( although there are plenty of them that are illegal as well).

by Anonymousreply 7April 23, 2019 7:00 PM

Cont from R6, this is another one of these policies that won’t really stop illegal imagration, but could be loaded with unintended consequences. Schools will be underfunded. Public transportation will received less investment etc. this will heavily impact American citizens that depend on these services. More republican nonsense...

by Anonymousreply 8April 23, 2019 7:03 PM

This was never about stopping immigration. It’s about hurting blue states financially and politically.

by Anonymousreply 9April 23, 2019 7:20 PM

R9 yep!

by Anonymousreply 10April 23, 2019 7:22 PM

It’s clearly designed to intimidate undocumented immigrants and decrease power of blue states, but I think it’s constitutional to ask such a question. The Census asks a hosts of prying personal and lifestyle questions. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits asking a citizenship question.

by Anonymousreply 11April 23, 2019 7:27 PM

Were these people really going to answer census questions anyway? If I was illegal and the government representative came to my door, I would refuse the survey. They broke the law, I'm not going to worry about underfunded schools and such. If these people went back to their home country there wouldn't be a problem. The State should come up with additional funding as needed. They will know exactly how many students are in their schools based on enrollment.

This question will allow the census to include the number of citizens and the number of peoples. In the history of this country, I have never seen so many people fighting to protect people actively breaking the law (unless they are wealthy).

by Anonymousreply 12April 23, 2019 7:29 PM

r11 said it better than me. If we ban the government from asking questions during the census then many items can be challenged. We may not like it, but it's a legally acceptable question.

by Anonymousreply 13April 23, 2019 7:31 PM

We are screwed. Al least ten more years of gerrymandering and the SC as a political body. Thanks Bernie or busters! You brought change

by Anonymousreply 14April 23, 2019 7:33 PM

It might be constitutional, but is it good policy? Or does that matter anymore? It blue states(that are not really growing in population anymore) the gap between poor/middle class that rely on public services and the rich will grow. Red state cities wont see federal funding match their growing populations. Idk the effect for rural areas

by Anonymousreply 15April 23, 2019 7:33 PM

No one is claiming asking about citizenship is unconstitutional. The case is about violation of federal rules and abuse of power.

by Anonymousreply 16April 23, 2019 7:33 PM

Not screwed R14 just more polarization brought to you by the Republican Party...

by Anonymousreply 17April 23, 2019 7:34 PM

Good!

by Anonymousreply 18April 23, 2019 7:35 PM

[quote] It's about allocation between the states of congressional districts. That is relevant to citizens, not guests or illegals.

That's the GOP line to reduce the influence of large liberal cities

by Anonymousreply 19April 23, 2019 7:39 PM

Every Census head has said adding this question will reduce participation and there are far better ways to get the same citizenship information

by Anonymousreply 20April 23, 2019 7:40 PM

"Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, has said he ordered the citizenship question to be added solely in response to a December 2017 request from the Justice Department, which said data about citizenship would help it enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Three federal trial judges have ruled that the evidence in the record demonstrates that Mr. Ross was not telling the truth. He had long before decided to add the question, the judges found, and he pressured the Justice Department to supply a rationale.

Justice Sotomayor suggested Mr. Ross had manufactured the reason. “This is a solution in search of a problem,” she said.

Documents disclosed in the case showed that Mr. Ross had discussed the citizenship issue early in his tenure with Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist and an architect of the Trump administration’s tough policies against immigrants, and that Mr. Ross had met at Mr. Bannon’s direction with Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state and a vehement opponent of unlawful immigration."

by Anonymousreply 21April 23, 2019 7:42 PM

We KNOW the GOP has an agenda with this question because they LIED about it

by Anonymousreply 22April 23, 2019 7:43 PM

States get reps and federal dollars based on the number of people. Undercounting people will mean fewer reps/fed dollars to blue states. And yes, the constitution says persons not citizens. This is one way the Republicans plan to stay in power forever

by Anonymousreply 23April 23, 2019 7:45 PM

[quote]I have to disagree with Sonia on the fundamental purpose of the census.

What you're really disagreeing with is the Constitution. The purpose of the census is clearly laid out there. She's right; you're wrong.

by Anonymousreply 24April 23, 2019 7:48 PM

[quote]Undercounting people will mean fewer reps/fed dollars to blue states.

It's also going to hit red states like Texas and purple states like Florida and Arizona.

by Anonymousreply 25April 23, 2019 7:48 PM

R23 it will also mean fewer reps/dollars for red state cities(that vote blue) it’s main impact imo will be to weaken fast growing big cities (think Atlanta, Houston, Nashville etc.) and to intensify polarization in blue cites with income inequality,

by Anonymousreply 26April 23, 2019 7:49 PM

r23 true but we is it good policy to rewards illegal immigration. I get the fact that legal green card holders and other guests should receive the funds but it seems like the funding question is much more important than the citizenship question on the census. We shouldn't have federal statues against immigration while rewarding these people with federal funds to their states based on their presence.

Is the federal government for or against illegal immigration.

by Anonymousreply 27April 23, 2019 7:49 PM

statutes^

by Anonymousreply 28April 23, 2019 7:50 PM

Announcing today?

by Anonymousreply 29April 23, 2019 7:52 PM

R27 let’s stop right there. Fed dollars aren’t a reward(states pay those dollars to the federal government who then returns them). If you follow the nuance. What is changing is federal dollars will no longer increase with population growth. This means that areas where there is underinvestment ( traditionally schools infrastructure and the like) will have even more of a shortfall. It’s bad policy for growing cites. The big blue state cities are no longer growing much so they will not nessisarily be the most effected

by Anonymousreply 30April 23, 2019 7:54 PM

The use of the census is described in the Constitution specifically in the section about The Legislative Branch and Specifically The House.

That is the purpose of the census to reapportion The House based on the count.

As for questions about citizenship, immigration, etc., those questions have frequently appeared on the US Census during previous counts.

Yes, the question should appear on the census.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31April 23, 2019 8:04 PM

The rights of gays and transfolk are next in the crosshairs for elimination.

by Anonymousreply 32April 23, 2019 8:09 PM

r30 those dollars also came from taxpayers, businesses and other legal residents. The fact that business collects tax dollars off of illegal worker, aka identity fraud (another crime), doesn't mean that the tax dollars shoudn't be allocated to those legally allowed to reside here as determined by the Fed. Our population increase shouldn't be based on illegal immigration anyway. If these people stay long enough then their children might be born here and have citizenship, so the point becomes moot.

My main point is, what is the federal government's view on illegal immigration? If the government supports it then they should fund state initiatives based on those numbers, if not then we should stop sending federal dollars for these people. The States can pick up the slack through taxes or reallocation of funds.

by Anonymousreply 33April 23, 2019 8:09 PM

[quote] If the government supports it then they should fund state initiatives based on those numbers, if not then we should stop sending federal dollars for these people. The States can pick up the slack through taxes or reallocation of funds.

You can’t ignore the Constitution to achieve your policy goals. It says count Persons, not count citizens.

by Anonymousreply 34April 23, 2019 8:13 PM

Um, we are talking about the allocation of federal dollars r34, not the census. The Fed has lots of constitutional room to determine how these funds are allocated.

by Anonymousreply 35April 23, 2019 8:16 PM

R33 tax dollars aren’t allocated to immigrants (legal or otherwise) money for schools, infrastructure and the like benefit everyone. Again you are forgetting there are plenty of struggling American citizens living in communities with chronic under investment( I know this is a problem in rural areas as well). Policies that cut investment are bad news for everyone in those communities .

by Anonymousreply 36April 23, 2019 8:17 PM

[quote] As for questions about citizenship, immigration, etc., those questions have frequently appeared on the US Census during previous counts. Yes, the question should appear on the census.

The last time it appeared was decades ago. It was removed because it served no purpose. Why does it suddenly have a purpose? Why put it on the census when it can be found in numerous other ways?

by Anonymousreply 37April 23, 2019 8:21 PM

Ok, but the previous poster mentioned that federal dollar ( depending on the funding) is sometimes based on population size which they take from the Census, which goes by the number of persons. Hence, illegals are included in that number, that was my point.

No one is negating the poor citizens and legal residents. I'm pointing out that the Feds policies don't make sense.

by Anonymousreply 38April 23, 2019 8:22 PM

Hopefully, the pain of reduced funding will push people to demands some action on the immigration standoff. We need some pain for people to wake up and address this issue.

by Anonymousreply 39April 23, 2019 8:23 PM

Apparently, New York State gets $90 Billion federal dollars just based on census numbers alone--for healthcare, education, infrastructure, prisons, etc.

Of course, NY State residents send far more to the federal treasury than that

by Anonymousreply 40April 23, 2019 8:24 PM

R33 and to answer your other question. Parties have immigration policies(lol). But the true policy has been for the us to benefit from cheap labour while turning a blind eye to “border issues”. This began to change because of sept 11th. Buts it’s difficult wonsqaure the circle. Inward migration (legal and illegal) has probably been th biggest boon to the us economy since 1965 (yes more than tech or the shale boom) I’ve always felt that it should be possible to apply for legal status once you are here. You could even tighten the requirements but this would get ride of the whole legal/illegal debate. Repubs are just repacking their anti-worker anti- urban agenda for the brown panic set

by Anonymousreply 41April 23, 2019 8:25 PM

[quote] Hopefully, the pain of reduced funding will push people to demands some action on the immigration standoff. We need some pain for people to wake up and address this issue.

3% of those in America are illegal. This is only a crisis in the minds of the GOP, which constantly wants to create fear: gays, women, minorities, Muslims and now illegals are going to get you!!

by Anonymousreply 42April 23, 2019 8:25 PM

Not a single penny for illegals

by Anonymousreply 43April 23, 2019 8:26 PM

R39 that never happens ...

by Anonymousreply 44April 23, 2019 8:26 PM

R43, amen

by Anonymousreply 45April 23, 2019 8:28 PM

[quote] Not a single penny for illegals

The federal government isn't giving money for illegals. Illegals don't even qualify for most federal programs.

by Anonymousreply 46April 23, 2019 8:28 PM

Illegals are going to kill you!!!!

by Anonymousreply 47April 23, 2019 8:29 PM

Illegals go home ! And not MY home.

by Anonymousreply 48April 23, 2019 8:30 PM

Asking the question produces a false and distorted count. That's been the testimony of every census director for decades. That would seem to run counter to the intent of the Constitution.

This is purely a political move by Republicans to dilute Democratic voting strength. Everyone knows it.

by Anonymousreply 49April 23, 2019 8:30 PM

Illegals allow the middle class some comforts that only the upper classes use to have--gardening, house cleaning, childcare, etc.

They add more to the economy than they take. Most are very hard working and get shit. I have no problems with them whatsoever.

The biggest beneficiaries, however, are huge corporations who make huge profits off their cheap labor. Funny how the government rarely goes after these employers

by Anonymousreply 50April 23, 2019 8:33 PM

I collected data for one census, maybe ten years ago. There were immigrant households, not that many, but some, where people were reluctant to give away information, but did so anyway when I told them that just knowing the number of people in the household was useful to the Census Bureau.

There were apartments in nice buildings where people never answered the door, even though you could tell they were home. Even after repeated visits.

The least responsive were NYU students.

What I presume will happen if this rule comes to pass is that a lot of people simply won't participate in the census.

by Anonymousreply 51April 23, 2019 8:36 PM

r50 I have a problem with the middle class exploiting them. Make a new green card category for these people, fine them, and let them stay. Let's go after the employers with fines and jail time. This entire issue is frustrating because it shows that our government can't protect the boards or keep track of visitors yet we are allowed to demonize the very people we exploit for profit.

by Anonymousreply 52April 23, 2019 8:38 PM

Thank you all Hillary and Bernie haters for giving us this SC. I hope you're happy.

by Anonymousreply 53April 23, 2019 8:49 PM

I am Ecstatic and elated R,53

by Anonymousreply 54April 23, 2019 8:50 PM

When is the decision going to be announced?

by Anonymousreply 55April 23, 2019 8:50 PM

Not for months, R55.

by Anonymousreply 56April 23, 2019 9:03 PM

[quote]What I presume will happen if this rule comes to pass is that a lot of people simply won't participate in the census.

You don't have to presume, as we already have the data to show that this is precisely what will happen.

That's a feature, not a bug, as far as the Republican Party is concerned.

by Anonymousreply 57April 23, 2019 9:04 PM

r53 Bernie was never even close to taking out Hillary if you look at the delegate calculations, which means he was never going to be the nominee. Now the Hillary haters, on the other hand, are responsible for this and many other issues since she could be in the WH right now.

Enough of this we failed to win the WH in 2016. We will have another chance in a year. We have a LOTS of fresh talent that entered into office out of frustration of the 2016 election. All isn't lost.

by Anonymousreply 58April 23, 2019 9:47 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!