Stop with the misinformation on what the census is.

The census isn't just a count of humans living here.
It really isn't.

If it were, it wouldn't require age, gender, DOB, rent/own, race, etc.

I understand the debate regarding citizenship. I think it's a fair question, and even more relevant than race (for instance) or even gender to a degree.
The alarmists opposing Trump claim it's racist. They claim that legal immigrants would be "afraid" to complete the form.

Well boo freaking hoo.

Trump needs to stop threatening an executive order. But in today's America it is absolutely important to understand the growth of our population (immigrant versus citizen).
Most understand this.
But many refuse to accept it.
And we all know the reason for that.

tailgater wrote:

representation is based on how many live where.
federal reimbursement/funding is based on how many live where.

Those numbers/amounts would not change based on age, gender etc.which don't mean anything politically.
But those numbers would be impacted greatly based on an undercount.

frankj1 wrote:

To nit pick by mentioning gender, age etc is to veer away from main point of the discussion.

It's not misinformation as it relates to our real topic which is adding the citizenship question to the census.
It's so not misinformation that it made it to the Supreme Court.

A GOP Redistricting Expert working with the current administration said the question would give Republicans and non-Hispanic whites an electoral advantage. He didn't come up with this as an intellectual hobby. That was his job, and he was probably very good at it. This Administration decided to use it for his reasons...

but they couldn't use those reasons in the Supreme Court.
They came up with other justifications.

The Court saw through it, called the justification "contrived".

None of this means that it is not absolutely important to understand the hows and whys and ways our population increases AND decreases (that also happens in many areas). I fully agree with you on that.

And most of these stats get tossed around here frequently enough to make one think that they are updated more often than every 10 years...

Not a Census concern. And not the reason the Administration wants to do it.

frankj1 wrote:

all statements trying to justify a decision that was blatantly made to affect an accurate count downwards in favor of the GOP...rings hollow after the actual motives for including the citizenship question were revealed in Court and ruled improper...

especially so since this country didn't feel it was necessary to ask that question on the census for nearly 70 years...


Trump's still trying to figure out a way to ask the question...what happened to the hard deadline (yesterday) to get the questionnaire to the printer?

delta1 wrote:

I saw what you did Frank... Back in post 60... I won't tell anyone... But I saw it...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

Numbers is indeed a part of it. The largest part, for sure.
But your "undercount" is based on the assumption that legal immigrants would be fearful of completing the form.
Let's be honest.
That assumption would require one to believe that the immigrant population is severely lacking in intelligence.
I know the democrat party has used this tactic before in their attempts to keep the black community in check, but I had hoped they matured.

tailgater wrote:

Funny to see a Massachusetts Democrat complain about gerrymandering.

Last time I checked, however, Non citizens can't vote. Regions steeped with immigrants don't have the representation equal to their numbers. Nor should they.
Being American isn't just your current zip code.

tailgater wrote:

Blatantly made to affect an accurate count downwards in favor of the GOP.

Explain.

tailgater wrote:

I saw what you did Frank... Back in post 60... I won't tell anyone... But I saw it...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

Thomas Hofeller, a GOP strategist, had conversations from the start with Trump administration officials, including Bannon, Ross, Miller, and later, Kobach regarding how to use the census, including a citizenship question, to get an undercount and benefit the GOP. The appellate court was shown documents of his dialogues with the Trump officials discussing how the question could negatively impact Latinos. The docs were discovered after his death a few months ago, and showed the real reason for the citizenship question, despite their argument that the question was intended to bolster the Voting Rights Act (funny on its face). That's where the CJSCOTUS drew a line and said the claimant "contrived" (blatantly lied) a reason for the question.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html 

delta1 wrote:

have you asked the Trump Administration yet?

cuz that's the question, not why does Al think so...they want to use it because THEY believe it.
I guess (and I can't know personally) that they believe it would intimidate enough so as to suppress real census numbers in a way that would hurt the Dems.
That's the story, not your version that Dems think Latin immigrants are stupid.

They believe it so strongly they went to the Supreme Court. Let's ask them why...the real reason why, same as the Supreme Court would like to know.

There, now kick the field goal. The goal posts have been reset.




don't quote me, but I agree with you. I think the anticipated effects of the question would disappoint both sides.
But it has also been said a number of times HOW it would be expected to benefit one side, I think that the GOP is overrating the effect...but I also believe that a number of minorities already pass on the census.

frankj1 wrote:

you mean the edit?

frankj1 wrote:

A better question, not for the census, would be why are illegal immigrants allowed to participate in the census? No money should be expended for their benefit. Yes, they pay some taxes, but that isn't relative. They don't belong here, they are criminals. Go home and come here legally. If they would be an asset to our country great, come on over. If they truely deserve political asylum, great, come on over. Reform the system to streamline the process, great let's do it. You here illegally, get the he'll out.

Speyside wrote:

So you don't know how it could benefit one political spectrum versus the other. But others have said it would and that's good enough for you?
Question everything.
Tell me how it could possibly benefit one political over another. It's just data. If it's useful data, then both sides can use it. Or abuse it. But I don't see how it's ONLY useful to one side. Which is the crux of the discussion.
I refuse to accept that it's true simply because others say so without any explanation.
I'm surprised so many do.

tailgater wrote: