July 11, 2019

"President Trump on Thursday abandoned his battle to place a question about citizenship on the 2020 census..."

".... and instructed the government to compile citizenship data from existing federal records, a significant retreat in the president’s wider crackdown on undocumented immigration.... The new approach, which appears to have been available to the Trump administration all along, could provide a clearer picture of how many people living in the United States are citizens without distorting census participation. But some Democrats complained on Thursday that the public debate itself might have sown fear among immigrants in the country and could taint their view of the census, even if it does not include the question about citizenship."

The NYT reports.

63 comments:

Eleanor said...

Trump is right. He's a stable genius. This is data the government already has. It's all under the control of the executive branch. I'm sure someone will sue, but on what grounds?

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“The new approach, which appears to have been available to the Trump administration all along...”

Oh boy. Big Executive Action!

Freder Frederson said...

Trump is right. He's a stable genius. This is data the government already has. It's all under the control of the executive branch. I'm sure someone will sue, but on what grounds?

So if he can get better numbers from already existing data (which is what he claimed today), then why the fuck did they waste all that time and effort to get the question on the census form?

The answer is is that they knew it would lead to an undercount, and that is exactly what they wanted, which directly contradicts the mandate of the Constitution.

Aunty Trump said...

““The United States policy to return people to Mexico and the pressure on Mexico to stop the migration are having a big impact,” said Daniel Bribiescas, an immigration lawyer in Tijuana.” - New York Times

Aunty Trump said...

So states can open their borders to illegals, block ICE, protect them from the nation’s duly passed laws and so increase their electoral votes? Genius!

Bay Area Guy said...

Count the illegals!

Freder Frederson said...

So states can open their borders to illegals

States do not control their borders, even if they are on an international border. That is strictly a Federal Government function.

Aunty Trump said...

"States do not control their borders, even if they are on an international border. That is strictly a Federal Government function.”

Ergo, sanctuary cities.

paminwi said...

I blame this whole situation on John Roberts.
His BS statement that there are no political decisions by the courts is complete and total bullshit.
The fact that the decision says the question is CONSTITUTIONAL BUT I DON'T LIKE YOUR REASONING is POLITICAL.
He hates Trump and it's why I think the Obamacare lawsuit making its way through the the courts will be stuck down again because he will side with the liberal group.

I am disgusted.

Aunty Trump said...

Then you can issue drivers licences to illegals, write sloppy laws to keep aliens from registering that have the effect of registering them, pass vote harvesting laws that eliminate the secret ballot and presto, you can run up huge majorities in the popular vote!

Genius!

n.n said...

The American and legal population may be underestimated, thus creating a larger margin of illegal aliens. The sanctuary cities in their aspiration to overturn civil rights will have to assume personal responsibility.

Freder Frederson said...

Then you can issue drivers licences to illegals, write sloppy laws to keep aliens from registering that have the effect of registering them, pass vote harvesting laws that eliminate the secret ballot and presto, you can run up huge majorities in the popular vote!

Provide the least bit of evidence that large numbers of illegal aliens are voting. As for vote harvesting, the only recent case of this was perpetrated by a Republican.

Temujin said...

Freder Frederson:
You forgot the entire State of California.

Aunty Trump said...

Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.

You extrapolate these out and you get millions.

Eleanor said...

Since the government began requiring all citizens to have a social security number from birth to death, we know how many citizens there are. We also know how many green cards we've issued and how many active visas there are. The only real people we need to count are the people here illegally. They're the only reason we need to do a count manually. We know about everybody else.

Freder Frederson said...

Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.

Provide a link, "tens of thousands" and "some" are very imprecise terms. Which leads me to believe that you are, indeed, blowing smoke.

MountainMan said...

"The answer is is that they knew it would lead to an undercount, and that is exactly what they wanted, which directly contradicts the mandate of the Constitution."

Did it lead to an undercount in 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950,....? Plenty of non-citizens in the country for each of those censuses, too.

Also, it appears to me, after doing more research, that it may be outside the boundaries of the census to count illegal aliens. A lawsuit has been filed in a Federal District Court in AL specifically on that issue, with some historical evidence from prior censuses that they should not be counted.

Freder Frederson said...

Did it lead to an undercount in 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950,....? Plenty of non-citizens in the country for each of those censuses, too.

Well, first off, through the 1920 census, there was practically no such thing as illegal immigration. If you didn't get turned back when you got off the boat, you were good to go. Even if you were subject to the few exclusions there were (e.g., you were Chinese) once you managed to get in, you had almost no chance of being deported.

rcocean said...

We asked people before for whether they are Citizens. We did in 1950 (100%) and we did on a statistical basis in (1960). From 1850 to 1940 we asked if people were foreign born and were naturalized or aliens. So, how is it "Unconstitutional" to ask the question. Did the Constitution change since 1950?

The Democrats don't want the Census to count non-citizens it will cost them EV and Congressional Seats. This is what this is all about. Everything else is Bullshit.

Jeff Brokaw said...

He should push to have that question on the census for the symbolic value alone.

Stand up for the law as written. That’s why we have the law, to enforce it. It’s pretty simple.

rcocean said...

Google is up to its usual Left-wing crap and makes it impossible to determine this. Everyone response to "When did the Census Counts Citizenshps" either directs you to a left-wing site attacking Trump for the 2020 Census or some left-wing site trying to obfuscate the matter.

cacimbo said...

Disappointing.

rcocean said...

You had the 4 conservatives saying it was OK to ask the Question. You had the 4 liberals saying it wasn't. Then you had Roberts saying it wasn't because of the Ross' pre-texual answers. A BS technicality. Just like he supported Obamacare. A Bs technicality.

Bush II probably called Roberts up and congratulated him.

Freder Frederson said...

Also, it appears to me, after doing more research, that it may be outside the boundaries of the census to count illegal aliens.

Not if you believe the text of the constitution.

From article 1 Section 2:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Where in there does it exclude those in the country illegally? Even slaves, who had no citizenship rights and were considered property, counted as three-fifths (and slave owners wanted them counted as full persons).

rcocean said...

I don't see anything in Trump's statement that shows he "gave up" on the Census.

rcocean said...

Now we got dummies quoting the Constitution! Adios.

Chuck said...

"He should push to have that question on the census for the symbolic value alone.
Stand up for the law as written. That’s why we have the law, to enforce it. It’s pretty simple"

Agreed. Asking respondents whether they are citizens is the most fundamental question of all. His mistake was in not simply doing it. No explanation Needed. What could the Supreme Court have said then? 'He can't do that. He didn't give us any reason for doing something completely Constitutional, wholly within the authority of the Executive Branch.

Michael K said...

So if he can get better numbers from already existing data (which is what he claimed today), then why the fuck did they waste all that time and effort to get the question on the census form?

We have a double play team of Freder and Inga. Trying to outdo each other on stupid.

It is the law that a census be taken. Why not try to be accurate ? Obama dropped the long form which has been used for 200 years,

You idiots should look at a Canadian census which includes how many carrots my great grandfather grew.

Idiots.

Matt Sablan said...

"His mistake was in not simply doing it. No explanation Needed."

-- The problem is any time he tries to do something, if he doesn't offer an explanation, then the worst possible one is offered as the obvious one and repeated as fact. He can't NOT provide an explanation, or else it will be "because he's racist." That's a basic understanding of the media landscape in the Age of Trump.

Michael K said...

Where in there does it exclude those in the country illegally?

Doubling down on dumb. There was no illegal immigration at the time unless the immigrants were ill or disabled. Ever hear of Ellis Island ?
Eventually immigration law changed but the drastic change that Democrats are trying to inflict on us all is the Teddy Kennedy law of 1965 that eliminated any merit-based immigration. At the same time, probably in collusion, Johnson launched the welfare state.

"That'll keep those n****as voting Democrat for a century "

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“We have a double play team of Freder and Inga. Trying to outdo each other on stupid.

It is the law that a census be taken. Why not try to be accurate ? Obama dropped the long form which has been used for 200 years”

Huh? Who said there should be no census? Are you having a bad dementia day today, you old coot?

Balfegor said...

But some Democrats complained on Thursday that the public debate itself might have sown fear among immigrants in the country and could taint their view of the census, even if it does not include the question about citizenship."

I find this use of "immigrants" infuriating. I saw somewhere else today a reference to "immigrants who had overstayed their visas," but that sounds like nonsense to me. Other than the temporary authorization at the start of the process, I don't think immigrant visas have terms the way non-immigrant visas have. I have a cousin, for example, who is in the US on a non-immigrant visa (and we are taking care that he does not overstay his visa and begin to accrue days of unlawful presence) and in no way, shape, or form is he an immigrant. He's no more an "immigrant" than a tourist, or a businessman here on a short business trip.

There's this ridiculous effort to normalize illegal immigration (including by visa-overstays) by trying to lump every foreigner who is present in the US, whether by invitation or by fraud, into a single, undifferentiated category. Frankly, it is offensive.

Freder Frederson said...

Eventually immigration law changed but the drastic change that Democrats are trying to inflict on us all is the Teddy Kennedy law of 1965 that eliminated any merit-based immigration.

Talk about doubling down on dumb. The 1925 immigration law had nothing to do with merit-based immigration. It was completely based on country of origin (and probably much to your chagrin is how my parents and I managed to immigrate to this country).

Balfegor said...

Re: Freder Frederson:

So if he can get better numbers from already existing data (which is what he claimed today), then why the fuck did they waste all that time and effort to get the question on the census form?

It's basic good practice to get your data apples-apples as far as possible. Mixing and matching different collection methodologies is possible but the quality of your aggregate data drops. I don't know what specific databases they're going to try to use to cobble together a count of the citizen population, but there's a lot of government databases that ought to be tracking current citizens (e.g. voter rolls, jury summons rolls, etc.) but do a famously crap job at it.

buster said...

Not sure that Trump has abandoned the fight. From a NYT article on Barr's statement today:

"Mr. Barr said that the Trump administration would soon reveal how it plans to add the question, but he would not detail potential legal pathways. The main challenge, he said, would be adding the question without disrupting the census."

buster said...

The article was from 3 days ago, so I guess Barr's position has changed.

Michael K said...

Talk about doubling down on dumb. The 1925 immigration law had nothing to do with merit-based immigration. It was completely based on country of origin (and probably much to your chagrin is how my parents and I managed to immigrate to this country).

I give up. An illegal alien has taken over Freder's ID. NO native English speaker could be this stupid.




This is the Kennedy law.

With allowances for Wikipedia's left bias,

With the support of the Johnson administration, Senator Philip Hart and Congressman Emanuel Celler introduced a bill to repeal the formula. The bill received wide support from both northern Democratic and Republican members of Congress, but strong opposition from Southern Democrats who viewed it as a threat to white-majority demographics in the United States. Johnson signed the Hart-Cellar Act into law on October 3, 1965. In opening entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than Northwestern European and Germanic groups, the act would significantly, and unintentionally, alter immigration demographics the U.S.[2]

The Hart-Celler Act created a seven-category preference system that gives priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills. The act maintained per-country and total immigration limits, but included a provision exempting immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from numerical restrictions. The act also set a numerical limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time in U.S. history. Though proponents of the bill had argued that it would not have a major effect on the total level of immigration or the demographic mix of the United States, the act greatly increased the total number of immigrants coming to the United States, as well as the share of immigrants coming to the United States from Asia and Africa.


And Mexico.

The proponents of the Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions.

Another Johnson lie.

Kevin said...

But some Democrats complained on Thursday that the public debate itself might have sown fear among immigrants in the country and could taint their view of the census, even if it does not include the question about citizenship."

Some people say some people may...

Kevin said...

Trump should say he’s asking the NSA for he number.

That would scare the hell out of people.

Freder Frederson said...

I give up. An illegal alien has taken over Freder's ID. NO native English speaker could be this stupid.

You contended that immigration prior to the 1965 law's passage was merit based (at least that is what I understood your point to be). I told you, correctly, that the 1925 law, which the 1965 law replaced, was not merit based.

That there was back and forth in drafting the 1965 law that resulted in less merit based admissions than that which you and southern racists would prefer, is irrelevant to my point.

And so I must question your comprehension of English.

MountainMan said...

"Where in there does it exclude those in the country illegally? "

This article will explain it more quickly and comprehensively than I can and explains a lot of the issues around trying to count who is here. Just realize, as in a lot of Federal laws and subsequent rule-making by the administrative agencies, the Congress has given a lot of discretion to the Census Bureau as to who is to be counted and who is not.

Also there is some historical analysis in this article regarding why we should not count illegal aliens.

As the First article also points out, the Federal District Judge in AL determined on June 6 that Mo Brooks and the State of AL have standing to sue the federal government over the census issue of counting illegal aliens as it could deprive the state of a House seat. So far this has pretty much been ignored by the mainstream press. Should be an interesting case.

Hagar said...

Eleanor above has a good point, but I don't think those records tell where each person is at this time, and that is what determines the number of representatives and the allocation of federal non-discretionary funds.

Anyway, I think the basis of the court suits is going to be is that the Constitution requires the numbers resulting from the Census are to be used.

The classes are:
Citizens.
Non-citizens with permanent visas (immigrants with stated intent to become citizens).
Non-citizens with temporary visas (tourists, temporary workers, business, etc.)
None of the above (illegal aliens)

Field Marshal Freder's position does not hold water. Illegal aliens are here illegally, i.e. they are criminals, and it makes no sense to count them as if they were here lawfully.

Steven said...

But some Democrats complained on Thursday that the public debate itself might have sown fear among immigrants in the country and could taint their view of the census

Okay. So, why was there a public debate over a question that was asked in every Census 1820-2000? Who decided to make a literal federal case over restoring a long-precedented and constitutional question?

narciso said...

The left did, when they sued to challenge the commerce regulations

Hagar said...

It might be interesting to know how the numbers from the Census are used. I think that for various government purposes it is assumed that everyone was not counted, and the agencies "estimate" the extent of the under-counting as best they can, or want to, for their purposes.
Is this done for the allocation of state representation in the house too?

KheSanh 0802 said...

Can't Facebook or Google give us this info? They've got everything else.

Lydia said...

Some quick facts re the citizenship question:

--The last time a citizenship question was among the census questions for all U.S. households was in 1950.
--In 1960, there was no such question about citizenship, only about place of birth.
--In 1970, the Census Bureau began sending around two questionnaires: a short-form questionnaire and a long-form questionnaire. The short form went to most households in America. The long form was sent to a much smaller sample of households, 1 in 6. Most people didn't get it. Starting in 1970, questions about citizenship were included in the long-form questionnaire but not the short form.
--Later, the census added the American Community Survey, conducted every year and sent to 3.5 million households. It began being fully implemented in 2005. It asks many of the same questions as the census long-form surveys from 1970 to 2000, including the citizenship question.
--In 2010, there was no long form — it had been replaced by the annual American Community Survey, which still asks the citizenship question..

Here's what the Census Bureau says about the change in 2010:

The long form was replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS), an ongoing survey of about 250,000 households per month that, with few exceptions, gathers the same data as its predecessor. The Bureau highlights the more timely availability of information as a key benefit of the ACS. It provides annual data for areas with populations of at least 65,000 people, including the total United States, all states and the District of Columbia, all congressional districts, about 800 counties, and 500 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. For less populous areas, the Bureau is producing multi-year averages based on ACS data collected over several years.

Earnest Prole said...

Placing the question on the census in a manner that would clear five votes in the Supreme Court required only basic administrative competence.

Michael K said...

you and southern racists would prefer, is irrelevant to my point.

I forget which law it is that once someone calls you a Nazi, they have lost the argument.

It applies to racism, too.

Bunkypotatohead said...

But some Democrats complained on Thursday that the public debate itself might have sown fear among immigrants in the country and could taint their view of the census, even if it does not include the question about citizenship."

We'd best shut down public debate then. Don't wanna be sowing any fear among "immigrants".

Unknown said...

Placing the question on the census in a manner that would clear five votes in the Supreme Court required only basic administrative competence.

Why would anyone expect this to *have to* clear the Supreme Court?

R.J. Chatt said...

The total head count from the census minus the number of people with legitimate social security numbers cross referenced with DMV/IRS/Medicare records, etc., equals the approximate number of illegal immigrants? What if there are more "people" with social security numbers than the actual count? That's also an approximation of the number of illegals.

That Trump is a genius alright.

narciso said...

Because you have to play Simon says with the court,

The Godfather said...

I find implausible the argument that asking the question would cause legal immigrants to avoid the census taker. If you're a LEGAL immigrant, you have nothing to fear. If there's fear, it's fear on the part of ILLEGAL immigrants. They SHOULD be fearful. Every law breaker should be fearful of being found out. I hope after the 2020 election the Democrats will have suffered severe enough losses to enter into a good-faith dialogue with the Republicans and the White House to reform our immigration laws, enforce those laws effectively, and (after that) make reasonable accommodations for some of those presently in the country illegaly.

Ambrose said...

And tomorrow, maybe he'll change his mind again and insist on it - just to make the NYT dance.

Howard said...

Even though Donald didn't get his question, he's still my hero.

Bob Loblaw said...

So a question that was on the census until 2010, when it was taken off as an executive action, is now somehow illegal.

Seems legit.

Earnest Prole said...

Why would anyone expect this to *have to* clear the Supreme Court?

Apparently you're new to this country and don't yet understand how politics here are actually played.

Steven said...

Placing the question on the census in a manner that would clear five votes in the Supreme Court required only basic administrative competence.

It's so cute how you're tying to pretend there's anything that could have been done to stop John "It's a Tax" Roberts from pulling an excuse to vote it down out of his ass.

Pierre said...

Vous voulez acheter kamas s'il vous plaît aller à mmoah

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Earnest Prole: Apparently you're new to this country and don't yet understand how politics here are actually played.

Miffed that Unknown horned in on your "let's play dumb" shtick this morning, eh?

Terry A. Kirkpatrick said...

The key question is: Can this data be used for apportionment? I don't see a clear answer anywhere.

Fen said...

Freder 2019: Provide the least bit of evidence that large numbers of illegal aliens are voting.

Freder 2006: Provide the least bit of evidence that large numbers of banks are coercing the Rating Agency's to give them AAA ratings

Vote fraud has a peculiar investigation rate, because you are less motivated to investigate it if you won anyway despite voter fraud, and not at all motivated to investigate it if you won because of voter fraud.

The only ones with a high motivation are those who lost due to voter fraud, and they have to compete with people like Hillary "the Russians ate my election" Clinton for attention.