Is it fair to ask about citizenship on the census?

@Carazaa I don’t know if you’re honestly confused or you’re intentionally being misleading.

People who support the citizenship question do [i]not[/i] care about non-citizens. Many, perhaps most, non-citizens when they see the citizenship question will become too intimidated and decide not to return the census form (because they’ll be afraid of being investigated and deported). This will result in at least two things that Trump and most Republicans will like: 1. Areas with heavy concentrations of immigrants (either legal or illegal) will be undercounted in the census, resulting in those areas being underrepresented in the House of Representatives and receiving less Congressional funding, and 2. Since few non-citizens will answer the census, Trump will be able to point to the census results and say that his tough talk and policies against immigrants are working because the census will indicate much fewer non-citizens than what we all thought we had.

Trump supporters that I’ve seen haven’t even bothered to pretend that the citizenship question is meant to [i]help[/i] non-citizens, they like it because it will result in illegal immigrants losing funding and representation that they feel illegal immigrants should not get. So in conclusion, if as you say you really do care about non-citizens you should be outraged about the citizenship question (not a lot you can do about it other than be sure to go out and vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020, but let that motivate you). Hope that clears things up for you.

@JP1119 Whether documented or undocumented, if they get counted they don't get represented. Though counted in the census, they still don't vote in elections. The result is that legal citizens of that state get overrepresented, effectively watering down the rights of citizens in non-sanctuary states.

Do the math on the hypothetical:

State A has 1 million legal citizens
State B has 1 million legal citizens

State A declares sanctuary and invites in 1 million illegals

the result:

State A has a census or 2 million (1 million legal + 1 million illegal)
State B has a census of 1 million (1 million legal)

so, since apportionment is based on census count,

State A gets 2 seats in the House of Representatives
State B gets but 1 seat in the House of Representatives

But both states have equal citizen populations, 1 million each.

So,

State A has 2 House members representing 1 million voting citizens
State B has but 1 House member representing 1 million voting citizens

What's the reality Vs the hypothetical? No one knows exactly because Democrats fight tooth and nail to keep questions about citizen status off the census. We do know, however, that Democrat states and cities give sanctuary to illegal immigrants, thus giving them incentive to flock to those areas, and thus disproportionally give those Democrat voters more representation than non-sanctuary states and communities.

@JP1119The question was is it fair! I answered that!

The reasoning you gave to justify its supposed fairness was dubious. Either you were confused or misinformed, or you were trying to confuse/misinform others.[quote]Some refugees starve because of fear. That is so sad![/quote] If it really bothers you that refugees are starving, then you should be outraged about the citizenship question because it will only cause more fear.

@Heartlander The census has always been meant to count everyone, not just people who can vote. Officially, it still will count everyone. The citizenship question is just a way of unofficially, underhandedly bullying non-citizens into not answering the census.