Jump to content

chasfh

The Presidency of Donald J. Trump

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Melody said:

I have seen that article.  It is absolutely wrong.  I looked at the census questions.  For example, what do they ask here at #16?  https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1940_population.html. It is disingenuous to say that this is the first time it was asked of "all" because if the individual was born here, they are be default a citizen.

From the artice

The last time a citizenship question was among the census questions for all U.S. households was in 1950. That form asked where each person was born and in a follow-up question asked, "If foreign born — Is he naturalized?"

In 1960, there was no such question about citizenship, only about place of birth.

 

In 1970, the Census Bureau began sending around two questionnaires: a short-form questionnaire to gather basic population information and a long form that asked detailed questions about everything from household income to plumbing. The short form went to most households in America. The long form was sent to a much smaller sample of households, 1 in 6. Most people didn't get it. 

Starting in 1970, questions about citizenship were included in the long-form questionnaire but not the short form. For instance, in 2000, those who received the long form were asked, "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Melody said:

How does it give the GOP an advantage?   It isn't like non citizens have a vote.  In Texas, we might gain house seats but over a million people here are going to be represented by someone they couldn't choose and most typically a Republican. 

It's not the answer to the question, it's that a non citizen would rather not respond to the census at all, given that the choice would be to lie on the question and increase grounds for prosecution or expulsion, or answer the question and possibly put ICE on to your presence. Thus states with illegal populations (say NY, CA) lose count and thus lose representation in the Federal Government. The Constitution nowhere stipulates that representation is to determined by citizen count - it is a person count.

Now it is an interesting point whether Red or Blue states contain the most illegals, but the GOP obviously has enough data that supports that suppressing non-citizen count is favorable to them - so Texas is not the target.

And I question whether this is even a total loss. This whole episode creates a context, and if Trump is still president when the '20 census comes out, all he has to do is start talking about new efforts to put the question on future cens-i (-uses?) in fact probably talking about how glad he is the question is now on the census (of course an outright lie  but a normal thing for Trump like the 400 miles of wall under construction) and that will still increase the number of aliens that will treat the census mailing like it is radioactive and not even open it.

EDIT: I see Chasfh already made similar points while I was typing....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article claimed Sanders statement was partially true -> potentially misleading.

Which I think is an reasonably accurate way to describe the situation when a relatively small subset of Census forms asked whether someone was an citizen or illegal immigrant in 1970.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

People are adamant about it because they know that a citizenship question will cause some residents to avoid answering the census at all, as a way to protect themselves from the bad consequences they imagine might happen.

Some of these residents might be undocumented immigrants afraid of being identified and deported. Others might be documented immigrants afraid of being identified and deported. Others might be naturalized citizens who fear being misidentified and deported. All these circumstances can lead to people avoiding the census, leading to under-counting population, leading to under-representation by their elected officials due to faulty district redrawing.

And since people who have come from other countries tend to concentrate in urban areas in larger states, where they feel safer and more accepted, it's Democrats who will suffer from the under-counting, and Republicans who will gain an unfair representation advantage.

Coincidentally or not, it is only Republicans who are pushing for the citizenship question to be included in the census.

That's why people are adamant about this.

Honest question: did you seriously not know any of this?

She knows. She is just a not so closeted Trump apologist. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Center for Public Policy Priorities estimates that a mere 1% undercount could cost Texas $300 million in federal funding a year.

That's much-needed funding, Beeson says, that would pay for education, transportation and health care programs in the state.

This seems almost perfectly timed with the conversation here.

As someone who lives in Texas, I want the maximum amount of tax dollars possible to come back into Texas after this upcoming census. And it is mindboggling why some would not care or actually be cool with the possibility of an undercount along those same grounds. It seems counterintuitive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The census is confidential.   It can not be accessed or used by our government for anything except statistical analysis or reports.    I just don't see this as a big deal either way.  I don't think that the GOP will gain what they think they might, or that it will truly affect the data collected in the way that the Democrats think it will.  

If people aren't returning them, maybe they need to be educated on this fact.  It can't, by law, be used in the way they fear.

https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you think it is a big deal, or the government can't use the data to track down individuals, the expected outcome is adding the question will reduce responses.

The expected result is what matters, not what you think should happen.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Melody said:

The census is confidential.   It can not be accessed or used by our government for anything except statistical analysis or reports.  

And who is responsible for enforcing such rules of confidentiality in the US government? And how much faith do you suppose people of color have in the enforcement of any of those rules under a President who already flouts the courts, and ignores Congress? It's easy for you to trust those guarantees, you are in all the administration's favored demographics. None of those guarantees are worth a spit without the good faith of the Executive Branch.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Melody said:

The census is confidential.   It can not be accessed or used by our government for anything except statistical analysis or reports.    I just don't see this as a big deal either way.  I don't think that the GOP will gain what they think they might, or that it will truly affect the data collected in the way that the Democrats think it will.  

If people aren't returning them, maybe they need to be educated on this fact.  It can't, by law, be used in the way they fear.

https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/

It would help if we had leadership in this country that hasn't repeatedly threatened to use the census as a political weapon. And, by virtue of blaming the people, it would appear that you are absolving our leaders from their responsibility to communicate facts to the American public about the census.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

And who is responsible for enforcing such rules of confidentiality in the US government? And how much faith do you suppose people of color have in the enforcement of any of those rules under a President who already flouts the courts, and ignores Congress?

Great questions.

And I'd add that with an administration that has crushed it's credibility under mountains upon mountains of lies, it hardly seems unsurprising that many people would be distrustful of this administration's motives on any number of issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mtutiger said:

It would help if we had leadership in this country that hasn't repeatedly threatened to use the census as a political weapon. And, by virtue of blaming the people, it would appear that you are absolving them from their responsibility to communicate facts to the American public about the census.

Oh sorry.  I completely forgot to add my, "orange man bad" disclaimer.   The genealogist in me likes looking at the detail in the old census and it has helped me in the past to track down ancestors.  Though it is notoriously unreliable, it does give clues where to look next for confirmation.  

Okay questions include asking about people's sexual preferences, for Pete's sake.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Melody said:

The census is confidential.   It can not be accessed or used by our government for anything except statistical analysis or reports.    I just don't see this as a big deal either way.  I don't think that the GOP will gain what they think they might, or that it will truly affect the data collected in the way that the Democrats think it will.  

If people aren't returning them, maybe they need to be educated on this fact.  It can't, by law, be used in the way they fear.

https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/

And who's going to educate non-citizen immigrants about this? Trump's federal government?

OK.

In any event, I totally understand why you just don't see this as a big deal either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Melody said:

Oh sorry.  I completely forgot to add my, "orange man bad" disclaimer.  

🙄

It doesn't matter how legitimate the point is or how it is explained, you just go back to the mocking "orange man bad" thing. Like clockwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chasfh said:

And who's going to educate non-citizen immigrants about this? Trump's federal government?

OK.

In any event, I totally understand why you just don't see this as a big deal either way.

According to the article MTUTiger posted above, it is the states. They have the most to gain or lose.   I think that hyperbole from partisans will do more to quash participation than a particular question.  

Ew.  I got that American Community Survey in 2012.  It was intrusive!   And that doesn't even touch some of the juror questionnaires I have completed.   So if people are concerned about confidentiality re government records, they have a lot of places to be concerned about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Euphdude said:

I'd like to see Trump take George Will on....Will would mop the floor with Trump's combover.

Trump would never take on George Will. I don't think Trump will take on anybody ever again. I don't think he feels he has to. As the reigning champeen, what's in it for him to consent to debates? What's the upside? All he'd be doing is legitimizing opposition, and I just don't see him consenting to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

🙄

It doesn't matter how legitimate the point is or how it is explained, you just go back to the mocking "orange man bad" thing. Like clockwork.

Reread the post I was responding to.    Most of what you are arguing is that the question itself is bad because Trump is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Melody said:

Oh sorry.  I completely forgot to add my, "orange man bad" disclaimer.   The genealogist in me likes looking at the detail in the old census and it has helped me in the past to track down ancestors.  Though it is notoriously unreliable, it does give clues where to look next for confirmation.  

Okay questions include asking about people's sexual preferences, for Pete's sake.   

Is the genealogist in you using confidential census data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Trump would never take on George Will. I don't think Trump will take on anybody ever again. I don't think he feels he has to. As the reigning champeen, what's in it for him to consent to debates? What's the upside? All he'd be doing is legitimizing opposition, and I just don't see him consenting to do that.

Yep.  I totally agree, he's not going to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Melody said:

Reread the post I was responding to.    Most of what you are arguing is that the question itself is bad because Trump is bad.

The comment was that this government is at a low-point in its credibility because of the amount of lies that it has told. 

Do you care to argue with that? Or are you going to keep up with the bad faith "Orange Man Bad" BS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

This seems almost perfectly timed with the conversation here.

As someone who lives in Texas, I want the maximum amount of tax dollars possible to come back into Texas after this upcoming census. And it is mindboggling why some would not care or actually be cool with the possibility of an undercount along those same grounds. It seems counterintuitive

What is the possibility that the TX state GOP is willing to see the State's national clout suffer slightly in order to maintain it's state wide control by allowing urban under counting to occur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Trump would never take on George Will. I don't think Trump will take on anybody ever again. I don't think he feels he has to. As the reigning champeen, what's in it for him to consent to debates? What's the upside? All he'd be doing is legitimizing opposition, and I just don't see him consenting to do that.

Will has been taking jabs at Trump as he’s being promoting his book. Trump likes to punch back, although he’d have to do so carefully against the likes of Will. I agree it’s unlikely Trump will say anything though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

What is the possibility that the TX state GOP is willing to see the State's national clout suffer slightly in order to maintain it's state wide control by allowing urban under counting to occur?

That’s a good observation. The state is starting to turn purple, and the GOP there will try to maximize its power and create situations leading to a possible minority majority rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

What is the possibility that the TX state GOP is willing to see the State's national clout suffer slightly in order to maintain it's state wide control by allowing urban under counting to occur?

I wouldn't put anything past the Texas GOP.... let's just put it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...