Politico: Census to add controversial question on citizenship status

[Virginiá]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/26/census-citizenship-questions-487399?lo=ap_b1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's go over this for a second:

1. Republicans have refused to fully fund the census to the point where they've had to stop testing new technologies meant to make future census operations cheaper, but also basic testing of their operation for all but one round. So now they want to add in a new question that very blatantly will cause volatile results, given Trump's ramped up ICE raids and anti-immigration rhetoric?

2. If they wanted to add this question, they should have done it years ago and provided full funding to test it until they could find a way to mitigate reduced response rates. This is incredibly irresponsible to drop this kind of question in at the last minute. It doesn't matter if they didn't have the power to do it before. All that means is that they should prepare it for the 2030 census instead. It's not like it is 2012 and they are preparing for the next census. This is going to happen just something like 2 years from now.

3. Does anyone seriously believe this is for the Voting Rights Act? From Republicans? They have wanted to get rid of the VRA for years, and we're supposed to believe them when they say they want to better enforce it? First off, they already ask the citizenship question in the ACS, which should have been good enough as it is. Second, no one has actually said they need better data for the VRA. This is just Republicans concern trolling with the census, all so they can under-count minorities for both federal funding and gerrymandering-related reasons.


-

This is the first census Republicans have run since 1990 and they are already screwing it up for absurdly bad reasons. First they refuse to provide proper funding, now they air drop in a controversial question just a couple years before it goes live. Is it really any mystery why Republicans are called an irresponsible governing party? The census is important for so many reasons, including for business. To screw with it for partisan gain and to notch a "win" for the base is incredibly petty and exactly the kind of thing a truly irresponsible governing party would do.

If Democrats have any sense, they will try and put a stop to this via any means necessary when/if the day they assume a House and/or Senate majority.

[Virginiá]

To be fair, the most recent budget has the Census getting more money then they even asked for. Also California has already said they would sue to prevent this.

They have; I was happy to see that too. But it doesn't make up for years of nickle and diming everything, even the programs that were meant to cut costs in the future (but required higher upfront investment). Republicans have constantly been cheap about this, to the point where they just make the problems worse.

But this is a whole new ball game. It's a continuation of actions under Trump showing absolutely no hesitation to weaponize every single inch of the federal government against the opponents of the Republican Party, both political and otherwise. I think that laughably fake Voting Rights Act excuse provided proves that this action was tainted from the minute it was brought up in the slimy halls of Trump's White House.

Reminder that Democrats were complicit in getting Secretary Ross confirmed. Serves them right:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00073

Because that would have mattered? This request came from the White House, even if not directly.

[Virginiá]

Right, but 21 Senate Democrats - almost half the caucus - voted to confirm him, making them partially complicit in allowing this action to be taken. Seems like an appropriate punishment.

No. Again, pretty much any plausible nominee from Trump would have done this. I keep seeing people bring up "some Democrats voted to confirm x y or z!" as if it would have mattered. I think maybe there are some small policy matters that that may be true for, but most, no. Just like net neutrality, this was going to happen no matter what, absent somehow forcing Trump to appoint a liberal Democrat who would rather get fired than bend to Trump's wishes, which would probably get fired and replaced with someone who would do what the other wouldn't, ending up at the same place anyway.

So yes, some Democrats voted for Ross, sure, if you want to say they are complicit, go ahead. No likely nominee would have been different. That doesn't make your "serves them right" logic any less unreasonable.

[Virginiá]

Oh, also, republicans shouldn't want this either. Undercounting immigrants will also effect red states. Immigrants don't respond and Texas won't gain 3 congressional seats.

A big part of this is probably Republicans wanting citizenship data so they can draw maps based on citizens only, as opposed to adult population. There was a lawsuit in 2016 or 2017 regarding this. They sued to try and force redistricting to be based on citizens (or at least let states choose), and I think part of the rationale against it was that the census doesn't have full citizenship data - only from the ACS.

So it could end up being much worse, even with Texas maybe getting a lower count.

[Virginiá]

Wouldn't that require a vote in the Senate?

I'm not sure. A vote on what?

[Virginiá]

My issue with only using voting age citizens in redistricting was not only the undocumented immigrant factor, but also (maybe even mostly) the exclusion of children - even citizen children, who would eventually be voting age at some point during the decade where those maps were set. It seems extraordinarily unfair to exclude children/teenagers, even those who are only 12+, who would become eligible to vote in anywhere from less than a year - year(s) after the maps are enacted. You are essentially cutting out future voters for no good reason. Our system should incorporate future voters into its design, not exclude them.

As for the immigrants, the census should count all people and attempt to do it accurately. I'd like to see this question thoroughly tested and for the govt to find ways to maintain acceptable response rates if they insist on asking that in the initial census. This is not that. They are putting in a problematic question just a couple years before the census goes live. That is not right.

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.

[Virginiá]

Off-topic obviously, but I do find it interesting how immigration always attracts a particular kind of user - those like Mortimer or Jeffster, usually are very argumentative and passionate about what must be their top issue.

EnglishPete and ahugecat were also the same, except their issue was the Russia investigation, and they would immediately invade any thread on it and drown it in pages of arguments that looked like they were ripped from the comments section of Breitbart.

[Virginiá]

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?

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I thought I recalled some analyses of the 2016 election showing heightened racially polarized voting in areas with significant minority populations... but that is not exactly for undocumented immigrants - at least not entirely.

[Virginiá]

The Administration is Lying About the Census

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-administration-is-lying-about-census.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is more to it, but the part I quoted is really what the article is about. The rest is history/etc to set up the basis of their claim.

Honestly, for those who follow politics, an explanation like this shouldn't even be needed. Republicans hate the Voting Rights Act (well, mostly, I'm sure they like packing African Americans into opportunity districts), and for them to say that this is all to enable better enforcement of the VRA is side-splittingly laughable - to the point where it is insulting even. Given that we know that there are very beneficial reasons conservatives would want to question people on their citizenship reason (apportionment of citizens only = whiter, more conservative districts), it makes this lie pretty illustrating of their real motives. Everything from the Trump administration seems like some partisan game or some new power grab. As if they hadn't gerrymandered enough maps as it is.