2020 census to include citizenship question

[ivwshane]

It's funny how slaves could be counted for the census but now illegals can't.

Its it funny because you don't understand the issue or is it funny because people are laughing at you because you don't understand the issue?

 

[Micrornd]

From reading the posts here, it sounds as though very few of the respondents have actually participated in a Census or have a clue as to what is asked.

The Census is taken every 10 years, with 2020 being the next.
It is designed to be answered be all residents of the US, it's possessions and territories, with a claimed 99% penetration rate.
There are generally 2 Census forms, a long form and short form, which are sent at random.
Short forms at usually 8-10 questions, while long forms are 30-80 questions.
Some years only 1 of those forms are sent, 2010 was such a year and only short forms were sent out, indicating that 2020 will most probably see both long and short forms sent out once again.

The American Community Survey is done yearly to collect additional data to supplement the Census. It has a designed penetration of 1 in 6.

Asking about citizenship is not a new question, and has been on the Census before, notably without objections.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

And for those that think it is an intrusive question, here are the Census and ACS questions from recent surveys.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/2010.html
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/2017/quest17.pdf

 

[MomentsofSanity]

From reading the posts here, it sounds as though very few of the respondents have actually participated in a Census or have a clue as to what is asked.

The Census is taken every 10 years, with 2020 being the next.
It is designed to be answered be all residents of the US, it's possessions and territories, with a claimed 99% penetration rate.
There are generally 2 Census forms, a long form and short form, which are sent at random.
Short forms at usually 8-10 questions, while long forms are 30-80 questions.
Some years only 1 of those forms are sent, 2010 was such a year and only short forms were sent out, indicating that 2020 will most probably see both long and short forms sent out once again.

The American Community Survey is done yearly to collect additional data to supplement the Census. It has a designed penetration of 1 in 6.

Asking about citizenship is not a new question, and has been on the Census before, notably without objections.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

And for those that think it is an intrusive question, here are the Census and ACS questions from recent surveys.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/2010.html
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/2017/quest17.pdf

The question hasn't been on the census since 1950 and there were reasons admins from both sides declined to restore it. It's also redundant as the ACS asks the same question which allows information to be extrapolated for the population without putting at risk the integrity of the census. The purpose is to count people, not citizens. The question of citizenship is in no way needed.

 

[fskimospy]

From reading the posts here, it sounds as though very few of the respondents have actually participated in a Census or have a clue as to what is asked.

The Census is taken every 10 years, with 2020 being the next.
It is designed to be answered be all residents of the US, it's possessions and territories, with a claimed 99% penetration rate.
There are generally 2 Census forms, a long form and short form, which are sent at random.
Short forms at usually 8-10 questions, while long forms are 30-80 questions.
Some years only 1 of those forms are sent, 2010 was such a year and only short forms were sent out, indicating that 2020 will most probably see both long and short forms sent out once again.

The American Community Survey is done yearly to collect additional data to supplement the Census. It has a designed penetration of 1 in 6.

Asking about citizenship is not a new question, and has been on the Census before, notably without objections.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

And for those that think it is an intrusive question, here are the Census and ACS questions from recent surveys.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/2010.html
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/2017/quest17.pdf

From this post is is clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. The citizenship question has not been asked by the census for nearly 70 years. Characterizing that as ‘not a new question’ is at best highly misleading.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Maybe the census should be modified for R's with questions like "have you ever had relations with a close family member?" with pictures to help them understand the question.

 

[HomerJS]

Maybe the census should be modified for R's with questions like "have you ever had relations with a close family member?" with pictures to help them understand the question.

Since you have to be 21 to answer, "Have you ever dated anyone under the age of 16"? We ought to be able to weed out a lot of Rs. Clearly the # of representatives in Alabama would go down.

 

[96Firebird]

If you're within the borders of the US and are breathing you're supposed to get counted in the decennial census.

So then why do people think illegals won't answer that question or fill out the census at all? Fear of prosecution doesn't make sense, since they won't be the only group to check that box. Probably not even the largest group that will check that box.

 

[fskimospy]

So then why do people think illegals won't answer that question or fill out the census at all? Fear of prosecution doesn't make sense, since they won't be the only group to check that box. Probably not even the largest group that will check that box.

Because they aren’t stupid?

They stand nothing to gain personally by answering the census and now they are revealing to a government official that they are here illegally. Sure the law says none of that can be used for immigration enforcement but if your entire livelihood and the life you know depended on people following that law would you make that bet? I know I wouldn’t.

 

[96Firebird]

Because they aren’t stupid?

They stand nothing to gain personally by answering the census and now they are revealing to a government official that they are here illegally. Sure the law says none of that can be used for immigration enforcement but if your entire livelihood and the life you know depended on people following that law would you make that bet? I know I wouldn’t.

The question does not ask if the person is illegal, only a citizen. There are plenty of people who are non-citizens that are not illegal immigrants, how does someone look at a census and tell if the person filling it out is here illegally?

This isn't hard to comprehend.

 

[fskimospy]

The question does not ask if the person is illegal, only a citizen. There are plenty of people who are non-citizens that are not illegal immigrants, how does someone look at a census and tell if the person filling it out is here illegally?

This isn't hard to comprehend.

I agree, it’s not hard to comprehend. The reason they won’t answer is because they aren’t stupid. If your livelihood depends on the government not finding out you are here illegally why would you give them any information whatsoever that would indicate you may not be here legally? It would be totally irrational.

 

[96Firebird]

Well I hope they also don't go anywhere where you'd need an ID, otherwise they may indicate they are here illegally...

 

[fskimospy]

Well I hope they also don't go anywhere where you'd need an ID, otherwise they may indicate they are here illegally...

Yes, it’s well documented that illegal immigrants use even government services they qualify for at reduced rates, specifically because they (rightly) fear disclosing that information. In those cases they are even getting a benefit (services) and they don’t do it. In the case of the census they don’t get anything. It’s just common sense for them to decline.

By the way there have been a bunch of news stories about ICE staking out courthouses in order to arrest undocumented immigrants when they come to participate in legal proceedings that they are required to be present for that have nothing to do with immigration . And remember, those courts don’t have any interest in their immigration status.

So yeah, it sure seems smart to not give you ID to government agents unless you have to, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[bshole]

For context, apparently Canada asks this question on their Census of Population. Now I have no idea what the Census of Population but I assumed it was equivalent to our census.

The 2016 Census of Population collects social and economic data on the Canadian population, including information on place of birth, place of birth of parents, citizenship and immigrant status.

The place of birth question helps to determine the Canadian province or territory or the country outside Canada in which the respondent was born. It provides information on the diversity of the Canadian population and on population movements within Canada and from other countries to Canada.

The place of birth of father and place of birth of mother questions in the Census of Population help to determine the country in which each of the respondent's parents was born. When used in combination with the question on the place of birth of person, they help to derive the generation status, and thereby establish whether the person is in the first, second, or third generation or more. The generation status provides information on the diversity of Canada's population and makes it possible to study how the children of immigrants are integrating into Canadian society. This information also helps to understand how Canada's immigration history has shaped the different generations of Canadians who make up today's population.

The citizenship question provides information on the legal citizenship status of Canada's population. This information is used to estimate the number of potential voters and to plan citizenship classes and programs. It also provides information about the population with multiple citizenships and the number of immigrants in Canada who hold Canadian citizenship.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...00-x2016007-eng.cfm?=undefined&wbdisable=true

 

[Micrornd]

The question hasn't been on the census since 1950 and there were reasons admins from both sides declined to restore it. It's also redundant as the ACS asks the same question which allows information to be extrapolated for the population without putting at risk the integrity of the census. The purpose is to count people, not citizens. The question of citizenship is in no way needed.

From this post is is clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. The citizenship question has not been asked by the census for nearly 70 years. Characterizing that as ‘not a new question’ is at best highly misleading.

Actually from both these posts it is clear reading comprehension is apparently a lost art.
It's all in the links I posted, it just requires one to read before posting nonsense.

The "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" question was #13 on the 2000 Census long form, " Is this person a citizen of the United States?" #9 on both the long and short form 1990, "If this person was born in a foreign country... Is this person a naturalized citizen of the United States?" #12 on the 1980 long form, etc.
So 3 out of the last 4 Census included the Citizen question.
Had 2010 not been only a short form Census, it may well have included the question, but instead the Commerce dept. relied on the ACS in that and following years to ask and answer that question.

 

[uallas5]

As Micrornd stated this question has been asked fairly recently and, as he also states, had it been included in the last census it probably wouldn't be causing as much of a ruckus. But unfortunately we're leaving in a time where there is definitely a anti-immigrant feeling in large parts of the population in this country (whether or not they admit that it exists is another story). This means that LEGAL immigrants are going to be uneasy about this census and possibly avoid it. Maybe they have undocumented relatives, friends, roommates, etc. Maybe they don't but are afraid of losing their status even though that shouldn't be.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually from both these posts it is clear reading comprehension is apparently a lost art.
It's all in the links I posted, it just requires one to read before posting nonsense.

The "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" question was #13 on the 2000 Census long form, " Is this person a citizen of the United States?" #9 on both the long and short form 1990, "If this person was born in a foreign country... Is this person a naturalized citizen of the United States?" #12 on the 1980 long form, etc.
So 3 out of the last 4 Census included the Citizen question.
Had 2010 not been only a short form Census, it may well have included the question, but instead the Commerce dept. relied on the ACS in that and following years to ask and answer that question.

It is clear that reading comprehension is indeed a lost art, haha. From your own link:

But if the 2020 census form does ultimately ask about citizenship status, it will be the first time most American households have received a survey asking about citizenship since 1950.

All it takes is a little time to read the things you are referencing before posting nonsense. Lol. Saying it is not a new question when it will indeed be a new question for the overwhelming majority of people is stupid at best and deliberately misleading at worst. I hope it was the former.

 

[Micrornd]

It is clear that reading comprehension is indeed a lost art, haha. From your own link: "But if the 2020 census form does ultimately ask about citizenship status, it will be the first time most American households have received a survey asking about citizenship since 1950."
All it takes is a little time to read the things you are referencing before posting nonsense. Lol. Saying it is not a new question when it will indeed be a new question for the overwhelming majority of people is stupid at best and deliberately misleading at worst. I hope it was the former.

Maybe try reading the whole article, instead of picking a sentence out of context?
Just a bit further in the article - "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?"

What I said was -

Asking about citizenship is not a new question, and has been on the Census before, notably without objections.

The statement is clear, concise and factual.
What you choose to read into it is, well frankly, an indication of your lack of objectivity.

I never said every man, woman, and child living in the US answered the question before or were aware of it.
The question was posed to 1 out of 6 households (not people, but households) in every Census since 1970 and all ACS's since 1996.
So while that is not a majority of Census respondents in any 1 year and is all of the respondents to ACS since 1996, it has most certainly been brought to the informed public's attention and politician's attention, having been asked for that long.
These are the same people who are now raising such an uproar.

It is a legitimate question that has never been an issue until this administration and is now political fodder.

 

[zinfamous]

OK. That would be on them as they are the ones breaking the law...

It's like you don't even care about the logic of your initial argument. "Oh, it means they will just not count themselves, thus trashing my explanation? ...well, that's their fault!"

 

[Micrornd]

Perhaps one thing that is being forgotten or ignored, is that the identity of those responding to both ACS and Census surveys is held confidential under federal law and cannot be revealed to even the FBI, ICE or any other government agencies.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe try reading the whole article, instead of picking a sentence out of context?
Just a bit further in the article - "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?"

What I said was -
The statement is clear, concise and factual.
What you choose to read into it is, well frankly, an indication of your lack of objectivity.

I never said every man, woman, and child living in the US answered the question before or were aware of it.
The question was posed to 1 out of 6 households (not people, but households) in every Census since 1970 and all ACS's since 1996.
So while that is not a majority of Census respondents in any 1 year and is all of the respondents to ACS since 1996, it has most certainly been brought to the informed public's attention and politician's attention, having been asked for that long.
These are the same people who are now raising such an uproar.

It is a legitimate question that has never been an issue until this administration and is now political fodder.

It wasn’t a sentence out of context, it was literally the conclusion of the article.

As for your statement it is ironic that you mention context as when you stated it was not a new question you omitted the context that it was in fact a new question for the vast majority of Americans. Your own link thought it was so important that they made it the concluding paragraph. Now THAT’S some missing context, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps one thing that is being forgotten or ignored, is that the identity of those responding to both ACS and Census surveys is held confidential under federal law and cannot be revealed to even the FBI, ICE or any other government agencies.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/

It is neither forgotten nor ignored and it has been explicitly addressed in this thread. Did you not read it?

 

[K1052]

Perhaps one thing that is being forgotten or ignored, is that the identity of those responding to both ACS and Census surveys is held confidential under federal law and cannot be revealed to even the FBI, ICE or any other government agencies.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/

The whole point is that the administration wants to use fear to suppress responses, which will probably be effective. Also while identities may be confidential the tract data won't be so giving this government more information to target tracts rich in illegal immigrants isn't exactly going to be a motivator for responding.

 

[Guurn]

Sounds like you are inferring malice where there is no proof of said intention. Are you paranoid?

The whole point is that the administration wants to use fear to suppress responses, which will probably be effective. Also while identities may be confidential the tract data won't be so giving this government more information to target tracts rich in illegal immigrants isn't exactly going to be a motivator for responding.

 

[K1052]

Sounds like you are inferring malice where there is no proof of said intention. Are you paranoid?

One would have to be pretty willfully obtuse at this point not to consider malice as an active motivation in basically all this administration's actions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perhaps one thing that is being forgotten or ignored, is that the identity of those responding to both ACS and Census surveys is held confidential under federal law and cannot be revealed to even the FBI, ICE or any other government agencies.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/

It's not like everybody knows or believes that. It's also related to the idea of sanctuary cities where the police disassociate themselves from La Migra to better do their jobs.

If the question hasn't been seen as necessary since 1950 I don't understand why it's necessary today. What we need more than anything else is just an honest count. It behooves us to avoid methodologies that may well be self defeating in that regard.