- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is no compelling reason to ask the citizenship question. The primary reason for the census is given by the Constitution for the purpose of apportioning representatives and funding. Over the years other questions have been added to the census for various other reasons. But none of those other questions pose a risk of an undercount, which would be contrary to the primary purpose of the census. At least that is the argument that was put forth in the Supreme Court today by those opposed to the citizenship question.
It is true that many other countries do have a citizenship question on their census, but those other countries may not have the purpose of enumeration for representation and funding defined by their constitution. So for them an undercount is not as significant.
So what compelling reason is there for adding a citizenship question that would be comparable to the risk of an undercount and the consequences toward representation and funding?
Just to be clear, the risk of an undercount is not the undercounting of illegal immigrants. The risk is from the fear of family units that may have both illegals and citizens in the household, or even have relatives who are illegals. These citizens who are so connected to illegals are likely to avoid sending in the census, thus depriving them and their community of the representation and funding that it lawfully deserves.
It is true that many other countries do have a citizenship question on their census, but those other countries may not have the purpose of enumeration for representation and funding defined by their constitution. So for them an undercount is not as significant.
So what compelling reason is there for adding a citizenship question that would be comparable to the risk of an undercount and the consequences toward representation and funding?
Just to be clear, the risk of an undercount is not the undercounting of illegal immigrants. The risk is from the fear of family units that may have both illegals and citizens in the household, or even have relatives who are illegals. These citizens who are so connected to illegals are likely to avoid sending in the census, thus depriving them and their community of the representation and funding that it lawfully deserves.
T
Theo520
Guest
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Is it settled law that any resident, citizen or not, should be counted for apportionment of house seats?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, we won’t have to wait very long to find out how the court rules. They have a deadline. They need to start printing in July.LeafByNiggle:
The states supporting this disagree with you
T
Theo520
Guest
I’m not up on this issue, only read the article I provided.
Do you think there is a compelling reason why they should not be allowed to continue asking this question, as they have repeatedly in the past?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Just my own opinion, but it seems to me that it is a matter of weighing two competing goals. Since the goal of getting an accurate count is explicitly stated in the Constitution, and the using the census to count undocumented people is not, the question should be is there a compelling reason to jeopardize the primary goal for the sake of the secondary one.
T
Theo520
Guest
the bureau’s experts showed that undercount caused by the citizenship question ultimately may be only 0.001% of the population. As the Census Bureau’s chief scientist testified at trial: “There’s no credible quantitative evidence that the addition of a citizenship question will affect the accuracy of the count.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That statement about “There’s no credible quantifiable evidence…” is a long way from an assurance that there will not be an undercount in specific areas. Similarly for the statement about “may only be…”. That is not quite the same thing as saying “it will not exceed…” Who were those bureau experts and how did they arrive at their figure of 0.001% ?
- Status