Politico: Census to add controversial question on citizenship status

[Gass3268]

I have to imagine that undocumented immigrants *already* have a minimal response rate when it comes to the Census, no?

Im clearly in the minority in that I think this is a bad rule that should not be instituted on its own merits, but that it’s effect will be negligible overall compared to how the Census already undercounts people primarily in poor rural areas.

There is fears that it could disgorge participation from legal immigrants and minority citizens.

[KingSweden]

I have to imagine that undocumented immigrants *already* have a minimal response rate when it comes to the Census, no?

Im clearly in the minority in that I think this is a bad rule that should not be instituted on its own merits, but that it’s effect will be negligible overall compared to how the Census already undercounts people primarily in poor rural areas.

There is fears that it could disgorge participation from legal immigrants and minority citizens.

Not invalid ones, but again, I’m more concerned with the underfunding and lack of tests run in preparation for the Census

[Green Line]

As Marco said, why would we not want to know how many citizens we have?  This is a CENSUS.

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe, consider it a difference of how I view representation. These people are here whether you like it or not, and they are vital cogs in the economy, whether you like it or not. Representatives should represent the people in their district, undocumented or not.

I am not trying to start a fight on this, but I'm legit curious: Is there evidence to suggest that having non-citizens as neighbors makes you more likely to vote in a way that represents the interests of non-citizens?  Has this been studied?  Because even if you are apportioning seats based on total population, it's only the actual citizens of voting age in those districts who are doing the voting.

What if, hypothetically, the evidence actually went the other way?: That living near non-citizens made people more racist, and therefore more likely to vote in representatives who advocated policies that non-citizens didn't like?  Would that change the calculus?

I don't know about policies per se but there seems to be some evidence that high number of immigrants force natives to vote more conservative/Republican. This seems to be the case in almost every country.

It doesn't quite answer your question but I would find it hard to believe that natives would not become more racist and less tolerant.

I don’t know which way it goes, I just think the “We have to give non-citizens *some* kind of representation, by accounting for them when drawing the district lines” always seemed like a weird argument.  You’re essentially “representing” them by proxy by giving disproportionate voting power to their neighbors who are citizens.

I mean, imagine an extreme case: District A has 800,000 people, all American citizens.  District B also has 800,000 people, but only half of them are citizens.  Both districts elect one representative, but District B only has half as many voters, because non-citizens can’t vote.  So the citizens of District B basically have double voting power.  It only takes half as many of them to elect one member to Congress.  What is the logic then?  That the citizens of District B should have more voting power because they have a large number of neighbors who aren’t citizens, so they’re responsible for deciding the fate of more people?  That they’re some kind of guardians of their neighbors who aren’t citizens?

Maybe they’re actually going to vote in a way that their non-citizen neighbors wouldn’t like, in which case those non-citizens probably aren’t too happy about their citizen neighbors having disproportionate voting power.  But whether this is the case or not, I don’t know.

[pbrower2a]

I have to imagine that undocumented immigrants *already* have a minimal response rate when it comes to the Census, no?

Im clearly in the minority in that I think this is a bad rule that should not be instituted on its own merits, but that it’s effect will be negligible overall compared to how the Census already undercounts people primarily in poor rural areas.

In 1990, I was an enumerator -- and I had little problem getting Hispanics (some probably illegal aliens in the Dallas area). I gave a list of federal agencies to which I was not affiliated (FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA, BATF, and especially la Migra) and I got treated with respect.

 

[Meclazine for Israel]

Out of the 13-15 million illegal immigrants, they probably just want to know where they live.

One of the difficulties with this argument is the "I hate republicans" bias which taints the discussion before the first reply.

[fluffypanther19]

I don’t think this will have as big of an impact as people may think.

same.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don’t think this will have as big of an impact as people may think.

same.

If California isn't that far below the threshold for a House seat, then I think we can say it cost us a House seat.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/981190790226554880

[Nyvin]

This could easily cost California a House seat.

California losing a seat is almost impossible,  gaining a seat was always kinda unlikely anyway.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/981190790226554880

Iowa's an interesting addition, given it's completely controlled by Republicans. Also, worth noting that VT, DE, DC may not have standing as their district counts wouldn't be affected.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/981190790226554880

Iowa's an interesting addition, given it's completely controlled by Republicans. Also, worth noting that VT, DE, DC may not have standing as their district counts wouldn't be affected.

Iowa has a Democratic attorney general.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This could easily cost California a House seat.

California losing a seat is almost impossible,  gaining a seat was always kinda unlikely anyway.

Your population estimates for California probably aren't accurate enough to say any such thing.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/981190790226554880

Proud to see Virginia on that list.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/981190790226554880

Proud to see Virginia on that list.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Maybe, consider it a difference of how I view representation. These people are here whether you like it or not, and they are vital cogs in the economy, whether you like it or not. Representatives should represent the people in their district, undocumented or not.

I am not trying to start a fight on this, but I'm legit curious: Is there evidence to suggest that having non-citizens as neighbors makes you more likely to vote in a way that represents the interests of non-citizens?  Has this been studied?  Because even if you are apportioning seats based on total population, it's only the actual citizens of voting age in those districts who are doing the voting.

What if, hypothetically, the evidence actually went the other way?: That living near non-citizens made people more racist, and therefore more likely to vote in representatives who advocated policies that non-citizens didn't like?  Would that change the calculus?

I wonder if this question is similar to ones about white people's views of racial minorities. If I recall correctly, white people tend to be most biased in places where there are almost no minorities, and in places where there are a lot of minorities. There's basically a sweet spot of minority population where white people can feel proximity to minorities, feel like they're part of the community, but also not feel like they're being overwhelmed.

I'm not advocating this, it was just my read of the studies. I'll see if I can dig some up.