The issue is the accuracy of the count, and the fact that statisticians have shown real concerns that the question may materially harm the count's accuracy.
There's a glut of commentary to that effect, but not much more than that.
The quick experiment that Muon describes in this thread is more evidence than I've seen mentioned by any major media outlet on the subject. Most articles don't even mention the sampling problems that the ACS suffers from when they discuss how the Census Bureau collects this data now.
There is strong evidence that it's more difficult to enumerate non-citizens, but there is nothing to tie their response rates to the citizenship question.
I see lots of red-herrings, very little evidence. Either the citizenship question is likely to produce an under-count, or it's not. If it is, what's the purpose? Problem is, the point of the census is to establish an accurate count. It's absolutely absurd to think that a voluntary citizenship question will be answered accurately by undocumented immigrants, so the motive is quite transparent. I mean, we all know this is rat-f***kery, so you won't object when a future Democratic president attempts to reduce the response rate of white trash? As long as there's a pretext, right? Sample Q: How may times have you drank to excess or used meth this month, you 9bloated, racist piece of sh!+?
The question holds enough relevance that it is included on the American Community SurveyNot relevant. ACS isn't the census.
and has been included on some past censuses.
Equally irrelevant — the possibility of an undercount due to a citizenship question wasn't nearly as pronounced in 1950. But you know this.
To contend that federal interest in the subject is bizarre or necessarily malignant simply isn't credible.
"Interest." So defend the notion that the proposed question is a reliable means of garnering said information. You can't. Neither can Wilbur Ross.
If the purpose of the decennial census were only to establish a population count, then even the short-form survey goes well beyond that in its scope.
The primary, constitutional purpose of the census is to establish an accurate population count. Anything frustrating that aim ought to be eliminated.
There's no real indication that a citizenship question would produce any more of an undercount than already occurs with migrants, black men, indigenous peoples, and several other groups (and that the Bureau goes to great lengths to address).
Well, if that's the case, I guess we should exacerbate the dynamic! So stupid. Who says a citizenship question will produce a significant undercount? Why, the chief statistical scientist at the Census Bureau:
https://www.prb.org/citizenship-question-risks-a-2020-census-undercount-in-every-state-especially-among-children/Synonymous with "no real indication," I suppose.
Ongoing partisan campaigns to de-legitimize the Census, led by both Democratic demagogues like Stacey Abrams and Republican demagogues like Donald Trump, are more concerning.
Wilbur Ross keeps lying for a reason. Basically, Republicans are attempting to weaponize the census. I reject the approach, but you seem to have no qualms whatsoever. (When did you shed your blue avatar?) Yeah, I can see where this is headed — a Democratic administration asking extremely intrusive, Orwellian questions about gun ownership. I'm sure you'll object, but the pretext is sound, so your whining will fall on deaf ears.
Your bigoted comments about "white trash" speak for themselves. It's unfortunate that the Democratic Party has become such a comfortable home for prejudice. It's enough to make you wonder how they might talk about the next group that turns against them in large numbers.
Hahahaha! WWC: stabbing Democrats in the back since the mid-1960's. For completely non-racist reasons /s. Sure, Jan. Yeah, these folks are contemptible, and I'm done being nice.