2020 census to include citizenship question

[Jhhnn]

Maybe because there is precedence to the question being asked, and its a simple question to answer.

If he was deploying ICE to collect census data, I would understand people being upset.

Get the census data first, then issue an EO to sic ICE on 'em. Easy-peasy. It's not like the question is useful for anything else, is it?

 

[ivwshane]

If whoever is President for the next census removes the question, I would similarly dismiss anyone upset over that decision. It’s a simple question.

You didn't answer the question. Try again.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You didn't answer the question. Try again.

I did. You just don’t like the answer.

 

[ivwshane]

I did. You just don’t like the answer.

No you didn't. Stop being a little bitch.

I'll repeat the question for you one more time: why do you give credence to the question being on the census before as reason enough to add it back in and yet you don't give credence to the fact that the question was removed?

 

[Starbuck1975]

No you didn't. Stop being a little bitch.

I'll repeat the question for you one more time: why do you give credence to the question being on the census before as reason enough to add it back in and yet you don't give credence to the fact that the question was removed?

I thought you liked little bitches.

Your question is stupid. I will break it down in simple terms.

The question is currently off the census. Trump wants to add it back on. I see no harm in doing so. It has nothing to do with credence because the question is benign. To me, citizenship is no different then providing age or hair color or gender or race or address. It’s identifiable information I have to provide frequently for access to basic services.

The census exists solely to count things. Data is very valuable as it helps to guide policy decisions. There is precedence behind asking the citizenship question. Given that immigration policy is currently an area of focus, I see no harm in quantifying the problem. After this census, we can easily remove the question.

You and others have yet to establish why the question is so triggering.

 

[ivwshane]

I thought you liked little bitches.

Your question is stupid. I will break it down in simple terms.

The question is currently off the census. Trump wants to add it back on. I see no harm in doing so. It has nothing to do with credence because the question is benign. To me, citizenship is no different then providing age or hair color or gender or race or address. It’s identifiable information I have to provide frequently for access to basic services.

The census exists solely to count things. Data is very valuable as it helps to guide policy decisions. There is precedence behind asking the citizenship question. Given that immigration policy is currently an area of focus, I see no harm in quantifying the problem. After this census, we can easily remove the question.

You and others have yet to establish why the question is so triggering.

God damn you are fucking stupid. Seriously. You just repeated your original response but added some hand movement (fedex commercial reference). The question was removed originally because it resulted in less accurate counting. I've linked to people who are experts in this area that have said as much, their opinion wasn't based on gut feelings it was based on actual tests and sampling. Can you say that data and similar information was used to add it back on? No you can't. You see no harm in adding the question because you have your head up your ass because you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

 

[glenn1]

God damn you are fucking stupid. Seriously. You just repeated your original response but added some hand movement (fedex commercial reference). The question was removed originally because it resulted in less accurate counting. I've linked to people who are experts in this area that have said as much, their opinion wasn't based on gut feelings it was based on actual tests and sampling. Can you say that data and similar information was used to add it back on? No you can't. You see no harm in adding the question because you have your head up your ass because you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

If your side is going to freak out about the question regardless then Trump might as well go all the way and just ask "how many people in your household are here illegally?"

 

[ivwshane]

If your side is going to freak out about the question regardless then Trump might as well go all the way and just ask "how many people in your household are here illegally?"

My side? I listed people from all over the spectrum who don't think adding the question is a good idea, dumb ass.

Here's a little insight into my mind: my decision not to support adding such a question wasn't dictated by who is in office but rather by the opinions of those smarter and more versed in the subject than I am. Its why I was able to link to opinions from experts and you and "your side" has not.

 

[Jhhnn]

God damn you are fucking stupid.

He's being deliberately obtuse, a conservative specialty.

 

[Starbuck1975]

God damn you are fucking stupid. Seriously. You just repeated your original response but added some hand movement (fedex commercial reference). The question was removed originally because it resulted in less accurate counting. I've linked to people who are experts in this area that have said as much, their opinion wasn't based on gut feelings it was based on actual tests and sampling. Can you say that data and similar information was used to add it back on? No you can't. You see no harm in adding the question because you have your head up your ass because you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Yes, you have said as much before. I appreciate your concern. You have yet to demonstrate why this specific question leads to a less accurate result. I’ll be admiring my lower intestine awaiting your intelligent and reasonable response.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If your side is going to freak out about the question regardless then Trump might as well go all the way and just ask "how many people in your household are here illegally?"

I no longer believe there is a wolf

 

[Jhhnn]

The coy dishonesty from conservatives is something I've learned to expect. There are a lot of things they pretend to not understand. This is one of them.

Let's say that a person is an undocumented immigrant who's been here more than 10 years, as 2/3 of them have been. Pretend you're that guy or gal. Having the Trump admin putting the stink eye on you is probably a bit disconcerting, to say the least. So you get this census form from the govt that asks you to rat yourself out as undocumented. Do you fill it out & send it back, or do you just throw it away?

The latter is obviously what will happen more often than if the question weren't there. It doesn't take any brains to figure that out. To say it's anything other than self defeating for the purposes of the census is utterly dishonest.

What am I saying? The GOP hasn't had the slightest qualms about being dishonest for a very long time. Post-truth is the way they want it to be. It's an extremely shrewd way for ruthless anti-democratic partisans to massage the data before it's even collected. They know what they're doing no matter how stridently they deny it. It's just another chickenshit way to cheat.

 

[glenn1]

The coy dishonesty from conservatives is something I've learned to expect. There are a lot of things they pretend to not understand. This is one of them.

Let's say that a person is an undocumented immigrant who's been here more than 10 years, as 2/3 of them have been. Pretend you're that guy or gal. Having the Trump admin putting the stink eye on you is probably a bit disconcerting, to say the least. So you get this census form from the govt that asks you to rat yourself out as undocumented. Do you fill it out & send it back, or do you just throw it away?

The latter is obviously what will happen more often than if the question weren't there. It doesn't take any brains to figure that out. To say it's anything other than self defeating for the purposes of the census is utterly dishonest.

What am I saying? The GOP hasn't had the slightest qualms about being dishonest for a very long time. Post-truth is the way they want it to be. It's an extremely shrewd way for ruthless anti-democratic partisans to massage the data before it's even collected. They know what they're doing no matter how stridently they deny it. It's just another chickenshit way to cheat.

The chickenshit way is to declare yourself a sanctuary and allow people to freely break our immigration laws, cheering them on while you exploit them for cheap labor and votes.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, you have said as much before. I appreciate your concern. You have yet to demonstrate why this specific question leads to a less accurate result. I’ll be admiring my lower intestine awaiting your intelligent and reasonable response.

Now why would I give you an intelligent response when you have yet to give one to me?

I don't need to demonstrate anything as the reason for this question being bad and antithetical to the purpose of the census was clearly laid out in the links I provided that had opinions by experts far smarter than me.

You on the other hand have yet to provide any amount of data or reasoning to why this question should be added other than your personal opinion, which quite frankly, doesn't mean shit these days.

So I'm still waiting for a reasoned response from you, three pages in.

Now do me a favor and show everyone how you are capable of not being an idiot.

 

[ivwshane]

The chickenshit way is to declare yourself a sanctuary and allow people to freely break our immigration laws, cheering them on while you exploit them for cheap labor and votes.

Do you even know what a sanctuary city is?


I suspect that if the federal government ever decided to confiscate guns due to laws passed by Congress, you'd be the first to call for sanctuary cities.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Now why would I give you an intelligent response when you have yet to give one to me?

I don't need to demonstrate anything as the reason for this question being bad and antithetical to the purpose of the census was clearly laid out in the links I provided that had opinions by experts far smarter than me.

You on the other hand have yet to provide any amount of data or reasoning to why this question should be added other than your personal opinion, which quite frankly, doesn't mean shit these days.

So I'm still waiting for a reasoned response from you, three pages in.

Now do me a favor and show everyone how you are capable of not being an idiot.

You’ve not pointed me to a link in any of your responses. The only link I saw from you in this thread is to a Mother Jones article, one that didn’t prove much of anything.

I’ve given you more than one reasoned response, a courtesy I continue to extend despite your petulance.

My opinion is my own. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to ignore me.

 

[Jhhnn]

The chickenshit way is to declare yourself a sanctuary and allow people to freely break our immigration laws, cheering them on while you exploit them for cheap labor and votes.

Please. That doesn't matter in terms of the census. The Constitution says count everybody so we need to make the best possible effort to do that. It's obvious that the citizenship question runs counter to that purpose.

The census isn't something to be twisted to partisan ends yet you reveal that as your true motivation by referring to sanctuary cities at all.

 

[glenn1]

Please. That doesn't matter in terms of the census. The Constitution says count everybody so we need to make the best possible effort to do that. It's obvious that the citizenship question runs counter to that purpose.

The census isn't something to be twisted to partisan ends yet you reveal that as your true motivation by referring to sanctuary cities at all.

If you can twist and ignore immigration laws then why should we respect the census laws? Rule of law means you don’t get to pick and choose which laws you’ll honor and which you’ll undermine.

 

[ivwshane]

You’ve not pointed me to a link in any of your responses. The only link I saw from you in this thread is to a Mother Jones article, one that didn’t prove much of anything.

I’ve given you more than one reasoned response, a courtesy I continue to extend despite your petulance.

My opinion is my own. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to ignore me.

From the article you apparently are aware of but didn't bother reading:

Five former directors of the Census Bureau, who served under presidents of both parties, told me they opposed the citizenship question and wrote a letter to Ross expressing their opposition, saying it would lead to an unfair and inaccurate total count. “It would be a horrendous problem for the Census Bureau and create all kind of controversies,” said Steve Murdock, who ran the census under George W. Bush. Ken Prewitt, who ran the census under Bill Clinton, said, “It is simply inconceivable to me there would not be a very high level of anxiety around that question.” Vincent Barabba, who ran the census under Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, called the addition of the question “beyond comprehension at this point. It would be really bad.”

Unlike all the other questions on the census form, the citizenship question has not been tested in field surveys because the request was made so late, so even the bureau doesn’t know how bad the impact could be. “My biggest concern is that it hasn’t been tested in a census environment,” said John Thompson, who ran the Census Bureau under Trump before resigning last June. “There are a lot of concerns that a lot of population groups won’t respond because they won’t trust the government with their data.”

Internal focus groups conducted by the Census Bureau last year found that when it came to responding to the census, “fears, particularly among immigrant respondents, have increased markedly” under the Trump administration.

Now a rational person would look at that information and re think their position and admit that adding the question isn't a good idea. But you aren't a rational person are you?

 

[fskimospy]

The chickenshit way is to declare yourself a sanctuary and allow people to freely break our immigration laws, cheering them on while you exploit them for cheap labor and votes.

I will have to keep in mind your desire for states to enforce federal law. I wonder if I look back at your other posts if you felt differently when it wasn’t about brown people.

 

[glenn1]

I will have to keep in mind your desire for states to enforce federal law. I wonder if I look back at your other posts if you felt differently when it wasn’t about brown people.

I doubt you’d be pleased if some other state refused to assist with enforcement of federal laws regarding gun sales, or discrimination, or the like. As for brown people my desire for the immigration quotas to be raised while existing immigration laws are better enforced isn’t a matter of skin color, national origin, or anything else. It’s your side that wants to make this about race not me. If anything I’d bebharder on the theoretical illegal white immigrant from a western country than a theoretical “brown person” from a third world nation because the former doesn’t even have a legitimate excuse not to follow our laws.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you can twist and ignore immigration laws then why should we respect the census laws? Rule of law means you don’t get to pick and choose which laws you’ll honor and which you’ll undermine.

Cities like LA have to find constructive ways to deal with the illegal population that the Feds let into the country. They're powerless to enforce immigration law & have been for decades. They lack the legal authority to do so. It's not their job. But they still have to provide services to all their residents. It's a serious problem for them when a big piece of the population is afraid of the police because they might get deported or because somebody who helps feed the extended family might get deported. Huge. So they say no, we're not a part of that. We're not La Migra. Work with us to keep everybody safe, you included.

If they start doing what you want the local authorities will get zero cooperation from a broad swath of their communities. You're not just screwing the hated illegals but all of the Americans who live in the same communities as well. And if you can find a way to not count undocumented people you'll screw those Americans out of their constitutionally mandated share of representation & federal funding as well. That's not right.

It's gone way, way too far for this hurf-burf "they shouldn't be here" routine to play at all. Forget that unless you just like having something to rave about. Get over your self righteousness & figure out how we can best make peace with each other, the people who really do live in America.

 

[Starbuck1975]

From the article you apparently are aware of but didn't bother reading:

I read that article, and thought perhaps you were referring to a different article. Since you did not, and that article does not make a compelling case, we are back to square one.

Now a rational person would look at that information and re think their position and admit that adding the question isn't a good idea. But you aren't a rational person are you?

A rational person would see their concerns as irrational fears over a simple question.

A census is the collection of data. This is a data point, nothing more.

The only opinion I care about on this topic is SCOTUS. Since there are lawsuits against this change, I expect it to quickly fall under judicial review.

 

[Jhhnn]

A rational person would see their concerns as irrational fears over a simple question.

So dishonest. Perhaps you'd care to address post #412, above.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So dishonest. Perhaps you'd care to address post #412, above.

How is that post unlike any of your others? There was nothing special about it to address.