2020 Census Questions Submitted to Congress

[Virginiá]

Please stop playing the victim here (that's also an advice to other Democrats in general).

And I'm a Democratic-leaning person myself (if I were to live in the US of course).

Seems irrelevant in this case. You are notoriously laser-focused on immigration, so playing the "I'm a Democrat too" card doesn't make it sound any more reasonable coming from you.

The Census is not "rigged", just because it includes a question for citizenship. That was the case in all censuses (or censi ??) so far and was never really a controversial issue, until some thought to politicize it.

I'd say there is an argument to be made behind the motives for this. The fact that they threw in the laughable "Voting Rights Act" excuse shows they have something to hide. I'm just curious whether it's a matter of federal funds or setting up a future case where they can be allowed to draw maps by eligible citizen voters, which would give them another advantage in redistricting, or both. To think that Republican actions here are innocent is incredibly naive. They are leveraging their power at the federal level to help them win future elections, just like they have done in the past.

A) answering the census questions do not lead to deportation, because the census answers have strict privacy protection. That Democrats continue to use this line of argument is really sad and annoying. Instead, they should strongly communicate it to minorities and immigrants ahead of the Census that by taking part in the Census, they are not deported or face any other personal consequences.

Really sad and annoying. Right. As if they haven't done it before.

Just telling people they have nothing to worry doesn't mean anything if they think that those assurances are lies, or at least likely to be broken on orders from Trump admin officials or Trump himself. What you're saying here sounds like a version of "just trust the govt," which I can't possibly see why you would think would work when ICE is rounding up people everywhere in pretty sneaky scenarios, such as at court houses and rallies.

[Virginiá]

Funny how many Democrats (like you) are now in the "Do not trust the government" camp ... after it was the Republicans under Obama.

It's more for certain actions which he has displayed willingness to engage in. Why would I think undocumented immigrants should trust this? Trump made immigration a central pillar of his campaign. Of course they shouldn't trust him. If Obama had run a similar campaign, it would be equally as true (actually, given the deportations under Obama, it should be true either way).

Trust in government has to be based on the people who run said govt to some degree.

The Census operation is now pretty safe and guarantees privacy for those who participate. Even Trump is bound to this. If he cheats and instructs Census officials to submit data of undocumented people to ICE, this would be against the law and a massive abuse of power, which would result in court cases and impeachment.

Court cases maybe, impeachment is doubtful unless Democrats control the House, which is still almost meaningless unless they can line up enough votes in the Senate. Also this depends on him winning reelection as well, which isn't really a given right now.


Given that Trump has ICE at his disposal already, and that the idea of more deportations from this census change depends on who is POTUS post-2020, my real concern is throwing in the census question for cynical and/or misguided reasons, which can reduce the response rates from people who don't trust the government. This can include families of undocumented immigrants - legal, citizen family members.

I'd be more OK with this if they added it now for the 2030 census (not the one coming up in just ~2 years). That way they can do numerous rounds of fully-funded testing, and not cheap out on it. I'd like them to prove that it won't cause problems. I'd also have less of a problem with this if Congress passed a law barring citizenship data from being shared with states for redistricting purposes. I'm not taking their word for it, and I don't expect a lot of other non-Republicans to either.

[Virginiá]

And yes, I get that there are partisans who would think this will help them in future elections. But I don't see how that changes the underlying issue. We should also be able to look back to the 2000 Census and see how the response rate for the citizenship question on the long form compares to the ACS. If there are real differences, then yes I would agree that more work needs to be done to improve education and outreach on the question. But if not, I think those who are fighting this may be just as partisan as those who are motivated to add it in hopes of winning future elections.

Does it even matter at this point if the push back is a partisan fear that Republicans are trying to rig the system in their favor even more? I think that is a completely rational response after what Republicans have been doing since Obama's presidency wiped out the Democratic Party. On one side, you have people who just want the census to stay the same as it has for decades with regards to this question, and the other, you have others who want to add a question that will give them data to possibly bolster attempts to redraw districts in a way that shifts power further to the Republican Party. I think if you were a well-informed, strongly Democratic voter yourself, you would probably have the same fears. You might even be wondering, "why can't Republicans stop trying to put their thumb on a scale that already significantly benefits them at almost every level? Why can't one year go by where scheming politicians don't try to rig the system more in their favor?"

Partisan concerns aside, I still have to ask why it is so important to add such a controversial question so close to the census. There doesn't seem to be a lot of support for the Voting Rights Act excuse - a flurry of responses which could be partisan in itself, but I'm not so sure. I haven't really seen anything that supports this being so important that it has to be done. I concede that you provide a reason for it, but is the reason simply existing good enough in this case?