Liberals' Reaction to the Census Citizenship Question Is Why We Should Push For It At All Costs
Last Monday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that his state would be filing suit against the Trump administration, not for conducting a door-to-door Eisenhower-style round-up of illegals in the state or even for slapping a coat of paint and some duct tape on a few broken-down sections of border fencing (not that they wouldn’t totally sue for those things), but rather for a simple question the Department of Commerce plans to add to the 2020 Census.
“Filing suit against @realdonaldtrump's Administration over decision to add #citizenship question on #2020Census. Including the question is not just a bad idea — it is illegal,” read a Monday tweet from Becerra announcing the lawsuit.
California is far from alone. New York is suing too, as is several other “blue” states. DNC chairman Tom Perez slammed the question addition as "a craven attack on our democracy." Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder called it an “irresponsible decision.”
Nevermind that the Justice Department ASKED census officials to include the question so they could better enforce the Voting Rights Act. And double-nevermind the fact that the Trump administration never stated that they weren’t planning to actually count non-citizens.
In one of those rare instances where liberals pretend to actually care what the Constitution says, Becerra cites the founding document’s requirement to conduct an “actual enumeration” of the nation’s population every 10 years, regardless of citizenship status, to lend credence to his argument that the Trump administration proposal is somehow “illegal.”
Problem is, asking about citizenship on the U.S. Census is far from new, much less some sinister Trump conspiracy. In fact, prior to the 1960 census, citizenship questions were regularly included on the form, and even appeared on some long-form questions from 1970 to 2000 because, as University of Wisconsin history professor Margo J. Anderson tells CNN, "We passed major new immigration legislation in 1965, and so the question became relevant again."
Which begs the question - when has the issue of immigration and citizenship ever been as “relevant” as it is now?
So obviously, there’s more to all the liberal hyperventilating than that.
Which brings us to the two major reasons liberals are so up in arms about this simple question, and they’re both, well, sooo liberal - Power and public perception.
Power
This one is obvious, and everyone admits it. A January Washington Post headline reads, “Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census could shift power to rural America.” ABC quoted an analyst that stated that, of the 18 seats reapportioned as a result of the 2010 census mainly as a result of the 40 million immigrants therein, “16 went to states that voted for President Obama in 2012,” concluding that “from a partisan perspective, immigration tends to benefit Democrats.”
Becerra’s tweet mentioned above also included a link to his San Francisco Chronicle article entitled, “Citizenship question on 2020 census may result in undercount.” In it, Becerra and Alex Padilla argue that class sizes, homeland security funds, transportation resources, and even natural disaster preparation would be “jeopardized,” and California’s “voice in government diminished” should the 2020 census result in an undercount.
“The Trump administration is threatening to derail the integrity of the census by seeking to add a question relating to citizenship to the 2020 census questionnaire,” write Becerra & Padilla. “Innocuous at first blush, its effect would be truly insidious. It would discourage non-citizens and their citizen family members from responding to the census, resulting in a less accurate population count.”
“California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census,” they continue. “An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college.) It would deprive California and its cities and counties of their fair share of billions of dollars in federal funds.”
Calling the request an “extraordinary attempt by the Trump administration to hijack the 2020 census for political purposes,” Becerra & Padilla argue that “Immigrants and their loved ones understandably are, and will be, concerned about how data collected in the 2020 Census will be used.”
Because Trump, of course.
Reading from the same playbook, Bloomberg writes, “Given the anti-immigrant and anti-minority rhetoric from President Donald Trump and many on the political right, Hispanics, immigrants and members of minority groups probably start by being concerned about answering any survey questions. A citizenship question would only make this problem worse.”
The fact is, illegal immigrants have always been reluctant to fill out U.S. Census forms, to the estimated tune of at least 40 percent, despite massive outreach programs - including signs in immigrant communities that say “NO INS. NO FBI. NO CIA. NO IRS” - aimed at ensuring immigrant communities that the purpose of the form is simply to gather data.
Even so, enough illegal immigrants answer the census for liberals to be rightly concerned about some of their power base. And they’re not wrong to be at least a little worried, which is all the more reason why conservatives should push for this at all costs. While the federal apportionment process is Constitutionally determined, there’s nothing to stop states from using citizenship data to determine THEIR legislative districts, as well they should.
The second reason liberals are hysterical over the citizenship question is one they aren’t likely to admit (but that doesn’t make it any less true).
Public Perception
“Nothing to see here, move on” liberals say, as they insist that the actual number of illegal immigrants has been at around 11 million for well over a decade now, and may even be declining. Illegal immigration isn’t a problem, don’t you know, because there are only 11 million of them and that’s apparently a really small number.
Notwithstanding the fact that 11 million is NOT a small number, it IS a number we’ve all gotten used to. But what happens if even a depressed illegal immigrant census count exposes the number as well over 11 million, especially if you account for the depressed response rate? How will a number of, say, 20 million, or, as Ann Coulter surmises, upwards of 40 million, sit with the majority of Americans?
At this point, might more be willing to support President Trump on a functional border wall to bring the invasion to a grinding halt?
Perhaps Diamond and Silk said it best when discussing the issue on Saturday’s Watters’ World: “They don’t want us to know who is exactly in our country.”
Which is all the more reason to find out. https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2018/04/02/liberals-reaction-to-the-census-citizenship-question-is-why-we-should-push-for-i-n2466856
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
“Even so, enough illegal immigrants answer the census for liberals to be rightly concerned about some of their power base. And they’re not wrong to be at least a little worried, which is all the more reason why conservatives should push for this at all costs. While the federal apportionment process is Constitutionally determined, there’s nothing to stop states from using citizenship data to determine THEIR legislative districts, as well they should.
The second reason liberals are hysterical over the citizenship question is one they aren’t likely to admit (but that doesn’t make it any less true).
Public Perception
“Nothing to see here, move on” liberals say, as they insist that the actual number of illegal immigrants has been at around 11 million for well over a decade now, and may even be declining. Illegal immigration isn’t a problem, don’t you know, because there are only 11 million of them and that’s apparently a really small number.
Notwithstanding the fact that 11 million is NOT a small number, it IS a number we’ve all gotten used to. But what happens if even a depressed illegal immigrant census count exposes the number as well over 11 million, especially if you account for the depressed response rate? How will a number of, say, 20 million, or, as Ann Coulter surmises, upwards of 40 million, sit with the majority of Americans?
At this point, might more be willing to support President Trump on a functional border wall to bring the invasion to a grinding halt?”
Yup, well said and valid points. In the meantime, CA AG Xavier Becerra follows the usual progressive strategy of resistance to this President by shopping for a like minded Judge to get some kind of ruling that stalls whatever action the President or in this case the Census dept is taking, though everyone on the planet knows the action is legal, much like they did with the travel ban. They got that if you recall stalled long enough to render it ineffective. Here is a case where the Census uses a question it used in the past and has every right to ask. Nobody is forced to answer it. Mr "hate America first" Becerra (he's a leftist ideologue - make no mistake) knows he can get one of his comrades in the 9th or the recently contaminated 4th Circuit Courts to go along and then we all have to wait for the appeals and eventual overturning of another disgraceful decision.
It's not a matter of shopping for a progressive or like minded judge. It's just a matter of putting the Constitution in front of any honest judge who can read plain English. It says "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." and that is what it says about the Census. Until then, deal. It could not be more clear. If you want the Census to only count Citizens then pass a Constitutional Amendment that changes the 14th Amendment that says that. It also does not matter if it was unconstitutionally used in the past. Two wrongs do not make a right and this gives the Census Department a chance to correct a grievous, unconstitutional and illegal error from the past. Obviously if a law has been broken in the past we want to correct that and not break it again in the future.
Not a thing wrong with the citizenship question as long as the people are counted.
Yes, it is. There is nothing in the Constitution preventing that question from being asked. You would need another Obama judge to order the Census from prohibiting the question and it would eventually be overruled, just as the travel ban prohibition was and the Daca extension will be.
" and that is what it says about the Census
And that is what is being done - we ARE counting everyone, we also want to know who is a citizen and who is not - PERFECTLY LEGAL.
Do you doubt it? Want to see it play out? Will you concede if the Supreme Court has to rule on it?
It was constitutional when it was asked all through out our history on the short or long form of the census. Just because Obama removed it from both in 2010 doesn’t make it unconstitutional to return to it in 2020.
It's constitutionality has never been challenged so that's a moot point. Except for the qualifications for president, neither the word "citizen" nor "citizenship" nor what was required for citizenship appears in the U.S. Constitution.
Bzzt. You are wrong. When defining the requirements for being a Representative or a Senator, it mentions that a person has to have been a Citizen for 7 years for Representative and 9 years for Senator. So, I suggest rereading the Constitution, and I'll help by linking to the National Archives:
California Democrats are only suing because they like having 55 Reps in Congress. They like being the powerhouse of Congress, so they can get more money to line their pockets with from other states. It is all about greed and power. We need the citizenship question on the Census to give an accurate number to apportion Representation based on the number of US Citizens, not legal alien residents and not illegal immigrants. The government is supposed to represent the best interests of the Citizens of this country and the state, not themselves or foreigners. The irony is that Democrats are clamoring about and demanding investigations into foreign influence in the 2016 election by Russia, but actually obstructing the prevention of and ignoring actual foreign influence from non-citizens voting in the elections.
Then pass an Amendment to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, because, if you like it or not, that is not what the Constitution says. It says apportioned to the total number of people, not to the total number of citizens. Amend the Constitution before 2020 or drop it.
In that case, you don't have anything to worry about.
Like I said, the total number of People. Including ALL people.
The quote is:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
Agreed?
That is obviously not what it says, since there are no Indians currently not taxed. So obviously they would be counted also. Do try to keep up please. Thank you.
And LIKE I SAID All people are being counted - we are asking if they are citizens or not. It is perfectly legal & appropriate
The citizenship question was constitutional for centuries before Obama removed it in 2010. We have a right to know how many citizens and non citizens live in this country.
There is already a push for a Constitutional convention by the states. So far, there are 12 states that have passed legislation calling for one.
Yup,
that's exactly what we are doing:
"The Department of Commerce is not able to determine definitively how inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial census will impact responsiveness. However, even if there is some impact on responses, the value of more complete and accurate data derived from surveying the entire population outweighs such concerns. Completing and returning decennial census questionnaires is required by Federal law, those responses are protected by law, and inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census will provide more complete information for those who respond".....Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
Now, now.
Don't you know by now that no illegal alien would ever willingly and knowingly break any of our laws? Isn't that the excuse liberals always give as to why they think illegal aliens don't commit any crimes?
It is funny. What I like best is when ICE agents pick up illegal aliens in CA. One of the questions they ask is if you voted. The Illegals don't have to answer honestly, "just say NO" as Nancy Reagan used to say - instead they almost always answer YES. It's like a slap in the face to every American.
Interesting that everyone seems to center on CA...A red state that will be hit very hard is Texas with 1.7 million illegals. CA is not the only state that will be seeing a smaller number of representatives.
That's right. Texas alone, along with the redistricting in PA, would lose enough Congressional districts to practically hand the House to the Democrats.
illegals are criminals. so... other than a few liberals, the rest of us in Texas are totally OK with that.
your assuming ALL illegals in texas filled out the census. guess what... never happened. (not even close)
Cheers
Red state, blue state ..... it doesn't matter.
Any concept that congressional representation for US Citizens, could in any way be dependent on non citizens, is beyond ridiculous. It's ludicrous.
I don't believe that I said anything about who is good with it and who isn't...It was simply a statement of fact...Many states will lose rep's. CA and TX being the two that will lose the most
The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between criminals and non-criminals or liberals or non-liberals. All persons must be counted.
Of course it doesn't matter. It seems from the comments that CA is the only one that is going to lose reps. In reality TX and numerous other states will as well.
And they will be. Why would you think they wouldn't be counted?
Well ..... it is California that's in the news filing suit and not Texas or some other state.
Or perhaps i missed something ......
I don't know if you missed anything or not...Simply the fact that many states will lose reps is what it's all about...
the constitution makes distinctions between illegals and citizens
Cheers
You were curious why everyone was concentrating on Ca and not Tx ..... i simply pointed out CA is the one suing, the one the article is about, so it stands to reason that is why everyone is concentrating on CA.
Hope that helps.
California is getting the attention because it is the state filling suit. Nothing surprising about that, they have resisted other things as well.
A red state that will be hit very hard is Texas with 1.7 million illegals
How do you know that? Texas is much more careful about who enters the state than is CA and I'm guessing that some of those illegals have left for greener pastures in CA. So let's get a true picture of what's happening on the besieged southern border
Please post the criminal statute broken solely by being in the country undocumented. Oh, that's right there is none. Undocumented is a civil infraction. You are no more a "criminal" by being here undocumented as you are a "criminal" by getting a parking ticket. Also, making it criminal would actually give people more rights to fight deportation than current civil law.
We focus on California, because California is actively trying to violate the Constitution with its Sanctuary State legislation. Texas has actually moved to stop Sanctuary Cities and is trying to cooperate with ICE, while California is actively obstructing ICE as shown by the Oakland mayor.
Psst. Let me tell you a secret, read Title 8 of the US Code. That is the actual listing of laws governing immigration, naturalization, and defines US Citizenship.
Pssst, are we talking about the census and amendment 14 or laws that apply elsewhere?
There will be 435 members of the house regardless.
As it applies to this conversation title 8 concerns entry the US without approval and is a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of 6 mo. It is also a felony to re-enter the US after being deported with a fine and/or not more than 2 yrs in prison. But this is not what I said - the act of being present in the US in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime.
The figure comes from this report Vic...there are other reports/studies are in that range as well.
You just listed 2 crimes where their very presence is a crime. First is the misdemeanor of entering the US without permission, by being present in the US illegally means that they should be in jail for 6 months then deported. If they have been deported, then came back (in other words, broke the first law a second time), they have committed a felony.
Half of the people you call "criminals" have just overstayed a VISA for one reason or another (many hoping to get legal status). They come in legally and this is where, by far, the biggest bulk of people deported come from - they have committed no crime. 80% of those never see a judge.
Actually, that half is a bad estimate as there is no way of knowing how many are here from crossing the southern border illegally...
Good enough
Yeah, and I remember when little Wendy Davis, and her pink tennis shoes were going to turn Texas purple.
Know what REALLY happened?
Despite huge amounts of money and being the liberal media darling, she got less votes than the last Democrat who ran for Governor.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state , excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age , and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guides the Census, says counting the whole number of PERSONS in each state . It says nothing about the numbers of citizens. Seems clear to me and it will seem quite clear to the Supreme Court. The Citizenship question is UnConstitutional on it's face on the Census Questionnaire. Obviously.
Why would you want non citizens to be counted? What would be the advantage to that? More votes for Democrats?
It's not a matter of what you or I want, It's what the Constitution says.
Because, as those old fucks back in the 1700's knew, a Country needs an accurate body count of everyone living in our borders not just for political reasons but to also help with properly allocating basic resources throughout the land.
How much water does this area need, now and in the future. Roads, sewage, schools, police, etc.
When a question is put on the census form that everyone gets with the SOLE purpose of forcing an under count, it screws with the goal set out in the Constitution in more ways than just deciding how many congressmen each State gets.
The question of citizenship, and many other household details, is being asked about in the more targeted, long form known as the, "American Community Survey", which is a sampling type questioner that goes out annually to a percentage of the population.
Putting the citizenship question into the general census form, the one that goes to everyone, may not even be legal if the Supreme's decide it's only there as a deliberate attempt to suppress the Constitutionally required full body count.
Words games.
Do you really think the founders meant any "person" who just happened to be on US soil when the census was done? Would this perhaps have included all British soldiers who just happened to be on US soil during the Revolutionary war? After all, they were "persons" as well right?
Ridiculous.
That's what they wrote, so that must be what they meant. Do you really really think that they meant the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Or is that ridiculous too?
Like i said, word games but by all means, lets go for an amendment on the 14th. I have little doubt it would pass as changed to "Citizen" and not "Person." But that will never happen because the left doesn't want that to come to a vote. They know they will lose their "non- citizen" advantage if it does.
But then you can double down and try to amend the 2nd. The opposite will happen. A zero chance of passing but I highly encourage the civic attempt to change it if that is how you feel.
That's the difference.
Then please, feel free to have your Representative in Congress introduce an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to change the 14th Amendment. If it passes it will probably be ready for the 2030 Census. It is your right under the Constitution as an American to do so and I strongly encourage everyone to try their hand at political activism.
I won't be doing so as I personally like the 14th as it is and will likely be dead by then anyway, but thank you.
Oh and I never mentioned trying to change the 2nd and find myself mystified as to where you came up with that comment/suggestion?
I know, i've already pointed that out earlkier
Me? I don't buy into any progressive crackpottery that intimates ANY non citizen should be affecting our congressional representation simply because it supports some partisan bias i may have.
I'm old school that way.
Don't be mystified, you brought the 2nd into this not me.
Well i can't really talk ..... i've got a bad case of CRS as well ..... sometimes CRAFT ..... either way it amounts to the same thing.
I like to blame concussions but i forgot why ....
But I am mystified, as I never mentioned wanting to change it.
I would suggest that we let Native Americans and the First Nations people of Canada and of course the various Natives of Central and South America be the ones to hold that set of court hearings and deport everyone, no matter where they come from, or when, of any of those countries or any others. Deport them all. It's immaterial.
The question is going to be on the Census.....Period.....My guess....We will find out that we have far more than 10 million illegal immigrants.....and that doesn't fit the liberal agenda.....as this article wisely points to.
And right under Question asking are you a citizen there should be one asking "if not a citizen, why are you here?"
And, the general answer would be, "None Ya", or, "I have a Visa, shithead."
Asking a citizenship question and determining congressional apportionment based on citizenship are two different things. The latter “may be” unconstitutional but the former is not.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, the census counted slaves as three fifths of a person (although none were truly citizens). That was done not to degrade slaves but to prevent southern states (with huge slave populations) from counting slaves on a one for one basis to increase their representation in congress and thwart the abolitionist movement. In effect, the south wanted to use the slave count to ensure that slaves would remain slaves. After the civil war, slaves became free and the 14 Amendment insisted that they be counted as whole people whether the states considered them citizens or not.
To me, illegal aliens (who cannot vote) should be deported rather than counted to dilute the voting strength of actual citizens in other states. We should determine how many illegal aliens are in this country and where they reside. That data should then be the basis for determining whether an additional constitutional amendment prohibiting the count of illegal aliens is necessary to reign in lawless states like California who harbor illegal aliens.
Leaving the question blank is a fine up to $100. Answering the question falsely is a fine up to $500. Since the 1970's fines have been rare. In 2010 the Conservatives led a push to not answer certain census questions like race. In 2012 Republicans in Congress were trying to kill the census entirely. Oh how things have flipped now that deplorables run the circus.
If this question does get put on the census, boycott it. I will.
It would appear that those that would like to boycott it .....are liberals.......I doubt that would serve their agenda well.....Think about what that would do if every Liberal Boycotted the Census.......I think the GOP would Love that.....
It would be great if liberals boycotted the census.
So you do admit that this tactic is a way to discourage a group of people from filling out the census form in order to further fuck the voting process in favor of republiscum. Thanks for that even if it wasn't your intention.
people are not being discouraged from answering the census. In fact, we want to count ALL people. Including illegal aliens.
It’s not a tactic. It’s a recognition of the general incivility and lawlessness on the political left when they don’t get their way.
Illegal aliens aren’t supposed to be here anyway and states like lawless California are harboring them. If illegal aliens don’t want to answer the census and get undercounted, then California will be right where they should be if they weren’t harboring illegals in the first place. I fully support putting the question on the census and hope no illegal alien answers it.
Of course they're not going to fill it out. They probably never have anyway. I've described what the purpose of the question is and it's not to uncover undocumented. It's to intimidate other people who are here legally but know what they'll be subjected to if the confidentiality of this question is violated (and with republiscum in charge, that's a dead certainty). This question will be used to harass people. The purpose of the census is to find out how many PEOPLE live in this country and where. Nowhere in the constitutional description and prescription of the census does it mention or even imply that it should only count citizens. To do anything that would deter people from participating is to violate the constitutional intent of the census. I feel pretty certain the courts will see it that way, as well.
Where did anyone say that the census wasn't going to count everyone they can?
One of the states that will get fucked the most money wise will be Texas.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Exactly and may Californication get the worst of it in every which way possible.
Asking a person whether he’s a citizen and then not counting him in the census because he’s a non-citizen are two different things. The only intimidating aspect of the question is that people who’re here illegally don’t want to answer because they think it could lead to deportation. Too bad. They don’t belong here. Non citizens who are here lawfully will have no problem answering the question and they’re the ones I care about.
The bottom line.
We can afford the hit. Can Texas? Or the many red states along the Gulf Coast?
This question was removed from the census form in 1950 by Congress, at the peak of the HUAC outrages and anti-commie hysteria in general. That should tell even you something about how objectionable it is.
I never realized that finding out the truth was so "Objectionable"......
It's not aimed at finding out the truth. It's aimed at undercounting minorities (see below)
How is asking a question regarding citizenship not counting people?
Not having the question is aimed at hiding the actual number of illegal immigrants in this Country. You don't have to answer the question at all....if you don't want to.....
It's funny how much your sort seems to suddenly trust the government that you've constantly accuse of being untrustworthy to be given any information requested on the census form. Now, it's no big deal to ask any question and no one should hesitate for a moment. Why do you make your hypocrisy so easy to reveal? Just asking...I don't mind at all that you do.
Again, been explained and if you don't get it, there's no way doing it again is going to help you understand.
Again, just because you type a bunch of words doesn't mean you answered.
Not sure what "My Sort" is.....but I don't give a rip about what questions are included on the census....ask all you want........if I don't want to answer it.....guess what......I won't answer it.....
Please show us the US SUPREME COURT rulings stating that the citizenship question was at any point in our history unconstitutional on either the short or long form. Then demonstrate how it would be impermissible to return the question to the form the next census after obama removes it.
Any state that openly harbors illegal aliens would certainly oppose disclosing the number of illegals they harbor. The state of California is a hideout and it’s officials should be arrested for obstruction of justice. All law abiding jurisdictions within the state are justified in separating themselves from a state-run criminal enterprise. It’s great to see Orange County stand up to Governor moonbeam and his gang.
If people don’t answer the form, then they can be prosecuted. Although that has rarely happened, it is also rare that states are in rebellion against federal law. But the feds don’t have to prosecute based on the census form. If a particular form is not completely answered or not answered at all, then it either can’t be counted or should be thrown out as incomplete. Either way, California should not be allowed to use its criminal activity of harboring illegal aliens to dilute the votes of citizens everywhere else.
Please stop spreading the same inaccuracies over and over.
The 2010 Census ( Form D-61) was printed before Obama took office. It was approved and printed during the Bush Administration.
The very short 2010 Census form was the result of the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act.
It didn't ask about home sizes, mortgage rates, how many rooms in house etc.
It just wanted a head count.
Your sort is one who doesn't goosestep in exact unison with the narrative that one happens to be pushing today.
That's your sort. Bad sort!
Now off with you ......
The rightwing, of course, is trying to make the false case that objection to the citizenship question on the census form a way to protect undocumented aliens. Of course, it's very unlikely that those people ever fill out the census forms in the first place. But there's a real and rational reason why this question might deter people here legally from answering any of the questions on the census form due to distrust they have in the government which might use the answer to subject them to ICE harassment anyway (and don't even try to pretend that's not a real thing, rightwing scumbags). And, they already probably under respond because there's always been distrust. The real goal here is to get an undercount of minorities of all kinds in order to help red states further their bugger efforts to gerrymander congressional districts using the distorted statistics. Unconstitutional gerrymandering has worked really well but is in danger of finally being dismantled by the courts so another tactic to tilt the board to the minority party's favor. In short, it's just another in a long series of ways republiscum have tried to fuck the voting process.
Wow. people here illegally don't trust the government? Why? What has our govt. done to them?
and I don't trust people here illegaly
This is why I never repeat explanations for things when you insist I haven't put anything up. It wouldn't do any good no matter how many times it was explained to you. You're ideologically immunized against facts or truth.
That is a typical response from the losing side of a debate.
Yawn.
You'd be an expert on that subject.
oooh, it is the 3rd grade tactic of "I know you are but what am I!!!"
Congrats on that.
Come up with all that by your lonesome?
Nah, they had help from Pee Wee Herman ..... it was his "stroke" of genius .....
And I thought he was famous for his stroke of PENIS!
LOL!
Just one stroke?
Why would some one here legally distrust the government inordinately?
Don't expect an actual answer. he might type a bunch of words, but an answer? Ha!
Does the constant conspiracy theory of "the deep state" ring a bell with you?
Seems like you've published lot's of seeds over the last decade decrying many conspiracy theories about the last Administration
and many more about the "Deep State" within the current Administration.
I think it's safe to say at least 45% of the population distrust the government at all times over the years.
You can pick and choose different categories to argue the issue,
but the point is - being here legally has nothing to do with trusting our government
regardless of one's legal staus, religious or political affiliation.
I'm a 2nd generation American citizen and I don't trust the current Executive or Congressional branches of Government in power at all and for good reason. I believe that they, especially the executive branch, have set incredibly wild new standards of just how corrupt, dangerous and traitorous an American government can be. Why would I trust them to do anything in America's interests when they have not so far? All the executive branch and the GOP Congress has done so far is to pad their own pockets with blatant conflicts of interests, outright theft, mis-use of their offices, mis-use of their office funds, outright theft of their taxpayer office funds, bribery collection from foreign governments, using their offices to sell their own products and make themselves richer...and that's just the Executive branch! Once you throw in sucking Russia's cock what do they have left to trust?
No Value {SP}
No. I just have my eyes wide open and can read. And so can Robert Mueller and his Dream Team of investigators.
No coc, no skirting, only the seeder can call an off topic so a liberal monitor removes a conservative seeders post on his own seed for “no value”? How is this objectively determined? That’s two of these today by the same person.
Not at al sure there is a rhyme or reason as to how posts are moderated.
Maybe it depends on your political bent?
I've reviewed the removed comment. It was flagged for no value and I've also spoken with a couple other mods to confirm this. That particular comment removal stands as it was just spammed emoji's which did not add to the conversation. - PRF
For myself I find it to be a legitimate question. To ensure an accurate count of humanoids, I would recommend it be the final question on the form.
As one mentioned last week, folks will either answer it or not.
oh, christjeebus, the stupid* burnsssssss.
* self-inflicted and perpetuated
The political appointee who requested the change, John Gore, previously defended Republican redistricting plans that were later found to be discriminatory, and another appointee to the census, Christopher Stanley, previously worked for a member of Congress who repeatedly introduced legislation to add a citizenship question to the census.
Trump’s pick to defend civil rights has record of defending GOP voting laws
Good on both counts. I’m as pleased by it as you are offended by it.
Of course you are … stealing elections via Russia or voter suppression is the right-wing way.
No one stole an election.
get real.
They're still standing in line in Ohio waiting to vote in the 2004 POTUS ELECTION …
… and how's your CHAD hangin'?
Got "history"?
50 million targeted identities taken from FB without owner consent, that by Cambridge Analytica with Trump and Breitbart connections … Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor, made "voter ID" an issue and then closed DMV offices in districts that traditionally voted Democrat … making it hell to get the required IDs which were attainable at Wisconsin CLOSED DMV offices.
You can play the "get real" card all you care to … but those who fuck with American democracy and those who look the other way because the outcomes don't fuck them … and, in fact, give them a partisan edge … are a serious danger.
Jess Willard's America … no substitute for a Coalition of the Decent.
Got any more one-liners?
Lordy, do y'all ever get over a loss?
Lordy, yourself … do you ever wonder when something significant is not as it should be … or only when it favors someone other than yourself?
And I cited specific circumstances that were and are questionable at best … and you specifically discussed NONE!
Chads--already ruled on by the courts.
Facebook---no votes changed, so I guess you are complaining about targeted ads---which is the point of advertising.
Wisconsin--was the law being passed some big surprise to people come election day or something? Did the law apply equally to all residents of Wisconsin?
You are still mad at Democratic losses. Your posts prove it. Gee, don't you know how unpatriotic it is to refuse to accept the results of the election?