Have You Completed Your Census Yet?

Could it possibly be that these are the same people who enslaved the black people originally in the South, effed them over, and now they need a new highly oppressed class whom they can also pretend to "save"?

@Heartlander
I agree. After all, it's not supposed to make any difference.
I don't get that either.

@Heartlander The citizenship question did not specify immigration status or ask if someone was here legally or not.

Questions about race are not thought of to result in an undercount.

@QuixoticSoul The census I took had no citizenship question at all.
What are you talking about?

@Budwick Yes, the Supreme Court made sure of that.

@QuixoticSoul So, you only meant to imply that there was a citizenship question then?

@Budwick No.

Does the context of this conversation elude you completely? What is it that you think Heartlander is talking about?

@QuixoticSoul I was responding to YOU!


There was no citizenship question!

@Budwick And why wasn’t there a citizenship question?

@QuixoticSoul

Go figure?

The arguments to the supreme court were about the intent behind questions about citizenship questions being there, and that there were other ways to estimate the number of non-citizens.

It would seem pretty simple that the intent was to see how non-citizen were affecting our representation in congress and the electoral college.

Roberts's opinion that it looked "contrived" made Roberts's opinion look contrived :)

---------------------

side request for grammarian: Is it Roberts's or Roberts' ?

It would seem that Roberts's would be the more correct since the person identified as Roberts is a single person and not plural.

@Heartlander The intent had to be balanced against the Bureau's own admission that the question was expected to result in an under count - meaning that it was interfering with the primary job of the census. And there are obviously questions whether said under count itself was the real intent, which is why whether the whole thing was contrived or not was an issue.

Btw, because there are already other ways to estimate the number of non-citizens it's not that hard to determine how they affect representation.

Anyway, the question that was removed did not ask anyone if they here here legally.

@QuixoticSoul Considering that one of the primary reasons for the census was for determining apportionment of members of the House of Representatives and the electoral college, it would seem that there would be a valid reason for knowing whether the people being counted were or weren't US citizens. While there may be ways to estimate non-citizen counts, there is no way to determine where in the US the non-citizens are dwelling.

The result of not knowing where they reside is that states with more non-citizens would have disproportionate more representation and states with fewer non-citizens would have less representation.

Of course, fundamental to this is the question of whether non-citizens should or should't be represented in congress.

@Heartlander Seems the founders decided yes, and nobody’s tried to push through a constitutional amendment since. They were quite specific in their original wording.

Edit: I forgot the 13th and 14th amendment - but anyway, as it stands the enumeration clause is quite clear.

@Heartlander Brilliant!