2020 Census Questions Submitted to Congress

[jimrtex]

Questions Planned for 2020 Census and American Community Survey (PDF)

It appears that these are arranged in alphabetical order:
Age 

Asks for age in years, plus birth date in Month Day Year.

This is the same form as 2010
Citizenship

Check boxes for:

[ ] Yes, born in the United States
[ ] Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas
[ ] Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents
[ ] Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization - Print year of naturalization [____]
[ ] No, not a U.S. citizen

This is a new question for the Census, but is the same form as used on the ACS.
Hispanic Origin

Includes check boxes for

[  ] No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
[  ] Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
[  ] Yes, Puerto Rican
[  ] Yes, Cuban
[  ] Yes, Another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin - Print, for example, Salvadoran, Dominican, Colombian, Guatemalan, Spaniard, Ecuadorian, etc. [_____________]

This is the same as the 2010 format, except that Guatemalan and Ecuadorian have supplanted Nicaraguan and Argentinean. The order also appears to based on more common responses. Guatemalan and Ecuadorian presumably suggests that Honduran and Chilean can also be used.

The Census Bureau had tested forms that made Hispanic Origin the equivalent of race, but ultimately chose to maintain the match to OMB standards, where Hispanicity and Race are orthogonal.
Race

What is this persons race?

Check boxes:

[  ] White - Print, for example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian [___________]
[  ] Black or African Am. - Print, for example, African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, etc. [__________]
[  ] American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principle tribe(s), for example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, Mayan, Aztec, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, Nome Eskimo Community, etc. [___________]
[  ] Chinese
[  ] Filipino
[  ] Asian Indian
[  ] Vietnamese
[  ] Korean
[  ] Japanese
[  ] Other Asian, Print, for example, Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong, etc. [___________]
[  ] Native Hawaiian
[  ] Samoan
[  ] Chamorro
[  ] Other Pacific Islander. Print, for example, Tongan, Fijian, Marshallese, etc. [_________]
[  ] Some Other Race. Print race or origin. [________________]

The response box for type of white is new. Presumably this is to get information about Middle Eastern persons, without adding another ethnic origin equivalent to Hispanic Origin. The suggestions are the most common, plus two middle eastern origins, including one in Africa.

During testing, there were issues whether Armenians, Iranians/Persians, Israelis, and Berbers were Middle Eastern.

The response box for type of blacks is new. Also "Negro" is dropped as part of the description. This lets Haitians, Jamaicans, and Africans to identify as distinct from African American. Somali and Ethiopian may be to encouraged ro select Black. They leave it up to darker skinned Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, whether they wish to also identify as black.

The list of example tribes is new. There may be an intent to discourage responses of Cherokee (princess) by using more formal names, and leaving off Cherokee from the list. In addition, two Central American groups are included, even though there might not be any formal tribal organization.

The check boxes for Asian and Native Hawaiian are arranged in the same form as the past. The Census Bureau has not asked if someone is "Asian" and then what kind. The box for Other Asian, was reworded, dropping "race" from "Other Asian Race". Pakistani was placed at the beginning of the example list, perhaps to discourage choosing White. Laotian and Thai were dropped from the list.

The check box for Chamorro is a change from the 2010 "Guamanian or Chamorro", perhaps to distinguish between ethnicity and place of birth. The example list for Other Pacific Islander had Marshallese added, likely to suggest any number of smaller groups.
Relationship

How is this person related to Person 1? (person one is presumably the(a) central person for a household, the one who owns or rents, or another adult, and likely the one who is filling out the form.

Check boxes:

[  ] Opposite-sex husband/wife/spouse
[  ] Opposite-sex unmarried partner
[  ] Same-sex husband/wife/spouse
[  ] Same-sex unmarried partner
[  ] Biological son or daughter
[  ] Adopted son or daughter
[  ] Stepson or stepdaughter
[  ] Brother or sister
[  ] Father or mother
[  ] Grandchild
[  ] Parent-in-law
[  ] Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
[  ] Other relative
[  ] Roommate or housemate
[  ] Foster child
[  ] Other nonrelative

The same-sex spouses boxes are new, and unmarried partner is moved to the top of the list, presumably to indicate a quasi-marriage relationship

I remember an old encyclopedia article which talked about how a husband had insisted that his wife was the head of the household. The census taker eventually convinced him that he was the head, and his wife was the neck. Whichever way she turned, he would follow.

The checkbox for Roomer or Boarder was removed, they're now just other nonrelatives; and foster child was added. "Housemate or Roommate" was flipped to "Roommate or Housemate"
Sex

Check boxes for

[  ] Male and [  ] Female
Tenure Owner/Renter

Check boxes for

[  ] Owned, with mortgage or loan
[  ] Owned free and clear
[  ] Rented
[  ] Occupied without payment of rent

This is the same as 2010
Operational Questions

These are not reported by the Census, but are used by the Census Bureau to help resolve ambiguities, where someone self-reporting on a sheet of paper might give different responses than the Census Bureau wants. The Census Bureau hopes most people will answer on-line, and they may be able to provide more interaction (they will distribute a code, and a web address. If someone wants a paper form, they will be able to request one).

How many people were staying in this house, apartment or mobile home [__]

Were there any additional people staying here that you did not include in Question 1?

Check boxes:

[  ] Children, related or unrelated, such as newborn babies, grandchildren , or foster children
[  ] Relatives, such as adult children, cousins, and in-laws
[  ] Nonrelatives, such as roommates or live-in babysitters
[  ] People staying here temporarily
[  ] No additional persons

Grandchildren were added as another example of forgotten children. The questions appear to be making sure that people are not confusing "household" with "family" or "immediate family". The instructions also say to omit people away at college or in the Armed Forces, as well as those temporarily in a nursing home, prison, jail, or detention facility, to avoid double counting.

Does this person usually live or stay somewhere else?

Check boxes:

[  ] No
[  ] Yes, for college
[  ] Yes, for a military assignment
[  ] Yes, for a job or business
[  ] Yes, in a nursing home
[  ] Yes, with a parent or relative
[  ] Yes, at a seasonal or second residence
[  ] Yes, in a jail or prison
[  ] Yes, for another reason

This has been extensively reworded. In 2010, the question was whether a person "sometimes" lives or stays somewhere else. The 2020 wording is more consistent with the Census definition where a person is counted based on where they "usually" live. The Census Bureau probably prefers that a person be erroneously reported, who they can then remove, rather than risk not reporting them. 18 and 19 YO whites are usually the only over-reported group.

Most of the others responses have been changed. In 2010 there were No or Yes check boxes followed by check boxes for reasons. For 2020 there is a No check box, and then Yes box is changed to be part of the reason for responding Yes.

"In college housing" to "Yes, for college"
"In the military" to "Yes, for a military assignment"
... to "Yes, for a job or business"
"For child custody" to "Yes, with a parent or other relative"

Some of these are more purpose-based, for example, "for college" rather than "in college housing". Some people might literally interpret the 2010 response as being in a dorm, rather than a rented house off-campus. On the other hand, the purpose-based "for child custody" has been replaced with a more neutral wording.

The name of each person, and phone number are also specified.

[Tender Branson]

Good to see that the 2020 Census will include the citizenship question again.

The citizenship status is an integral part of any census around the world and scrapping it was a step back IMO.

[Gass3268]

Good to see that the 2020 Census will include the citizenship question again.

The citizenship status is an integral part of any census around the world and scrapping it was a step back IMO.

Hopefully the Democrats strip this after they win back the House in 2018. Don't want a rigged Census.

[Tender Branson]

Good to see that the 2020 Census will include the citizenship question again.

The citizenship status is an integral part of any census around the world and scrapping it was a step back IMO.

Hopefully the Democrats strip this after they win back the House in 2018. Don't want a rigged Census.

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).

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.

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.

B) immigrants do not only have rights, but also duties. Filling out the census form and declaring that they are non-citizens is one of those duties.

[Tintrlvr]

Good to see that the 2020 Census will include the citizenship question again.

The citizenship status is an integral part of any census around the world and scrapping it was a step back IMO.

Hopefully the Democrats strip this after they win back the House in 2018. Don't want a rigged Census.

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).

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.

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.

B) immigrants do not only have rights, but also duties. Filling out the census form and declaring that they are non-citizens is one of those duties.

The bolded is false. The Census included the question up through 1950 (not sure exactly how far back), but it was dropped in 1960 out of concern that it conflicted with anti-discrimination considerations and the interest in ensuring a complete count and has not been included in any Census from 1960-2010. One should hardly be surprised that Censuses before 1960 were not exactly non-discriminatory.

[Gass3268]

Good to see that the 2020 Census will include the citizenship question again.

The citizenship status is an integral part of any census around the world and scrapping it was a step back IMO.

Hopefully the Democrats strip this after they win back the House in 2018. Don't want a rigged Census.

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).

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.

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.

B) immigrants do not only have rights, but also duties. Filling out the census form and declaring that they are non-citizens is one of those duties.

The bolded is false. The Census included the question up through 1950 (not sure exactly how far back), but it was dropped in 1960 out of concern that it conflicted with anti-discrimination considerations and the interest in ensuring a complete count and has not been included in any Census from 1960-2010. One should hardly be surprised that Censuses before 1960 were not exactly non-discriminatory.

That you for educating him. The citizen number is included in the ACS survey, I don't see why that needed to change, other than to rig the census.

[Tender Branson]

Good to see that the 2020 Census will include the citizenship question again.

The citizenship status is an integral part of any census around the world and scrapping it was a step back IMO.

Hopefully the Democrats strip this after they win back the House in 2018. Don't want a rigged Census.

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).

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.

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.

B) immigrants do not only have rights, but also duties. Filling out the census form and declaring that they are non-citizens is one of those duties.

The bolded is false. The Census included the question up through 1950 (not sure exactly how far back), but it was dropped in 1960 out of concern that it conflicted with anti-discrimination considerations and the interest in ensuring a complete count and has not been included in any Census from 1960-2010. One should hardly be surprised that Censuses before 1960 were not exactly non-discriminatory.

Still, if the privacy argument is properly communicated ahead of the Census - then I see no problem how the Census would be discriminating ...

If everyone knows that checking the immigration box won't lead to deportation, then it's the fault of the remaining paranoid/ignorant immigrants if the Census leads to an undercount. But the census exercise in itself is fair.

[Nyvin]

The Citizenship question will probably lead to Texas and maybe Florida not getting their 3rd and 2nd additional congressional seats, respectively.    

California might miss out on gaining one as well, but that was already iffy anyway.

[Tender Branson]

The Citizenship question will probably lead to Texas and maybe Florida not getting their 3rd and 2nd additional congressional seats, respectively.    

California might miss out on gaining one as well, but that was already iffy anyway.

That's a ludicrous assumption based on milk-maid-calculations ...

If Democrats use their power after 2018 to launch a significant information campaign for minorities/immigrants and making them aware that participating in the Census will lead to no deportations, there won't be a significant undercount. If they don't, the Democrats are also to blame for a likely undercount.

Democrats for example have a vast email-database of minorities/immigrants from their campaigns, so they should send out mass emails to them encouraging them to participate in the census and also tell them to ask their undocumented friends/neighbours etc. to participate.

Otherwise, this would only be a victory to Trump and nobody wants this.

[Tintrlvr]

Good to see that the 2020 Census will include the citizenship question again.

The citizenship status is an integral part of any census around the world and scrapping it was a step back IMO.

Hopefully the Democrats strip this after they win back the House in 2018. Don't want a rigged Census.

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).

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.

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.

B) immigrants do not only have rights, but also duties. Filling out the census form and declaring that they are non-citizens is one of those duties.

The bolded is false. The Census included the question up through 1950 (not sure exactly how far back), but it was dropped in 1960 out of concern that it conflicted with anti-discrimination considerations and the interest in ensuring a complete count and has not been included in any Census from 1960-2010. One should hardly be surprised that Censuses before 1960 were not exactly non-discriminatory.

Still, if the privacy argument is properly communicated ahead of the Census - then I see no problem how the Census would be discriminating ...

If everyone knows that checking the immigration box won't lead to deportation, then it's the fault of the remaining paranoid/ignorant immigrants if the Census leads to an undercount. But the census exercise in itself is fair.

It's not a matter of "fairness" to individuals. One person not being counted affects everyone, including people who were counted, in a negative way. Moreover, it is frankly absurd to claim that outreach programs (from a funds-strangled Census Bureau!) will be able to counteract deep-rooted and legitimate mistrust of authority.

[muon2]

One of the purposes of the Census is to provide complete data, not merely estimates, of the population by block to be used in redistricting. Up through 2000 asking age and race was sufficient to get the voting age population required to test compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Court decisions leading up to the 2010 Census made it clear that for certain minority groups, especially Latinos, citizen voting age population was the correct measure for testing VRA compliance.

However the 2010 Census lacked a citizenship question and that posed real issues for the states and localities trying to draw plans that would comply with the VRA and be sure that they would stand up in court. There was ACS data with citizenship information at the time of the Census release, but the ACS geographies didn't match those of the Census since it was collected prior to the finalization of the 2010 Census boundaries. ACS data with the new geographical boundaries came out many months after the Census data, too late for some states that have early constitutional requirements.

Even if the Census had the manpower to process a round of the ACS while doing the decennial Census (they don't) it isn't available at the block level, but is aggregated by larger geographical units. The ACS is also just an estimate based on sampling so it has statistical errors, just like a political poll does. If that sample is small, as is the case for a 1-year sample, they can't even make estimates at the block group level and the data is too coarse for redistricting.

To get a good ACS sample that can really apply to redistricting at level needed by mappers the 5-year sample would be needed. But that means waiting over 5 years after the geography is finalized (typically 2 years before the Census) to get an ACS data set, so that might occur 2 years after the redistricting data is first released.

The other way would be to greatly increase the number of households that must answer the ACS in the year after the Census. Increasing the number probably means going back to the long form sent to 10% of all households. That again runs into the manpower problem since the Bureau is completely focused on preparing the Census during that year, and the ACS was designed to spread that workload more evenly through the decade. At that point the Census might as well just pick out the questions needed for redistricting under the VRA and include them in the standard Census form.

[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.

[King Lear]

Questions Planned for 2020 Census and American Community Survey (PDF)

It appears that these are arranged in alphabetical order:
Age 

Asks for age in years, plus birth date in Month Day Year.

This is the same form as 2010
Citizenship

Check boxes for:

[ ] Yes, born in the United States
[ ] Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas
[ ] Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents
[ ] Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization - Print year of naturalization [____]
[ ] No, not a U.S. citizen

This is a new question for the Census, but is the same form as used on the ACS.
Hispanic Origin

Includes check boxes for

[  ] No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
[  ] Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
[  ] Yes, Puerto Rican
[  ] Yes, Cuban
[  ] Yes, Another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin - Print, for example, Salvadoran, Dominican, Colombian, Guatemalan, Spaniard, Ecuadorian, etc. [_____________]

This is the same as the 2010 format, except that Guatemalan and Ecuadorian have supplanted Nicaraguan and Argentinean. The order also appears to based on more common responses. Guatemalan and Ecuadorian presumably suggests that Honduran and Chilean can also be used.

The Census Bureau had tested forms that made Hispanic Origin the equivalent of race, but ultimately chose to maintain the match to OMB standards, where Hispanicity and Race are orthogonal.
Race

What is this persons race?

Check boxes:

[  ] White - Print, for example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian [___________]
[  ] Black or African Am. - Print, for example, African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somali, etc. [__________]
[  ] American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principle tribe(s), for example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, Mayan, Aztec, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, Nome Eskimo Community, etc. [___________]
[  ] Chinese
[  ] Filipino
[  ] Asian Indian
[  ] Vietnamese
[  ] Korean
[  ] Japanese
[  ] Other Asian, Print, for example, Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong, etc. [___________]
[  ] Native Hawaiian
[  ] Samoan
[  ] Chamorro
[  ] Other Pacific Islander. Print, for example, Tongan, Fijian, Marshallese, etc. [_________]
[  ] Some Other Race. Print race or origin. [________________]

The response box for type of white is new. Presumably this is to get information about Middle Eastern persons, without adding another ethnic origin equivalent to Hispanic Origin. The suggestions are the most common, plus two middle eastern origins, including one in Africa.

During testing, there were issues whether Armenians, Iranians/Persians, Israelis, and Berbers were Middle Eastern.

The response box for type of blacks is new. Also "Negro" is dropped as part of the description. This lets Haitians, Jamaicans, and Africans to identify as distinct from African American. Somali and Ethiopian may be to encouraged ro select Black. They leave it up to darker skinned Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, whether they wish to also identify as black.

The list of example tribes is new. There may be an intent to discourage responses of Cherokee (princess) by using more formal names, and leaving off Cherokee from the list. In addition, two Central American groups are included, even though there might not be any formal tribal organization.

The check boxes for Asian and Native Hawaiian are arranged in the same form as the past. The Census Bureau has not asked if someone is "Asian" and then what kind. The box for Other Asian, was reworded, dropping "race" from "Other Asian Race". Pakistani was placed at the beginning of the example list, perhaps to discourage choosing White. Laotian and Thai were dropped from the list.

The check box for Chamorro is a change from the 2010 "Guamanian or Chamorro", perhaps to distinguish between ethnicity and place of birth. The example list for Other Pacific Islander had Marshallese added, likely to suggest any number of smaller groups.
Relationship

How is this person related to Person 1? (person one is presumably the(a) central person for a household, the one who owns or rents, or another adult, and likely the one who is filling out the form.

Check boxes:

[  ] Opposite-sex husband/wife/spouse
[  ] Opposite-sex unmarried partner
[  ] Same-sex husband/wife/spouse
[  ] Same-sex unmarried partner
[  ] Biological son or daughter
[  ] Adopted son or daughter
[  ] Stepson or stepdaughter
[  ] Brother or sister
[  ] Father or mother
[  ] Grandchild
[  ] Parent-in-law
[  ] Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
[  ] Other relative
[  ] Roommate or housemate
[  ] Foster child
[  ] Other nonrelative

The same-sex spouses boxes are new, and unmarried partner is moved to the top of the list, presumably to indicate a quasi-marriage relationship

I remember an old encyclopedia article which talked about how a husband had insisted that his wife was the head of the household. The census taker eventually convinced him that he was the head, and his wife was the neck. Whichever way she turned, he would follow.

The checkbox for Roomer or Boarder was removed, they're now just other nonrelatives; and foster child was added. "Housemate or Roommate" was flipped to "Roommate or Housemate"
Sex

Check boxes for

[  ] Male and [  ] Female
Tenure Owner/Renter

Check boxes for

[  ] Owned, with mortgage or loan
[  ] Owned free and clear
[  ] Rented
[  ] Occupied without payment of rent

This is the same as 2010
Operational Questions

These are not reported by the Census, but are used by the Census Bureau to help resolve ambiguities, where someone self-reporting on a sheet of paper might give different responses than the Census Bureau wants. The Census Bureau hopes most people will answer on-line, and they may be able to provide more interaction (they will distribute a code, and a web address. If someone wants a paper form, they will be able to request one).

How many people were staying in this house, apartment or mobile home [__]

Were there any additional people staying here that you did not include in Question 1?

Check boxes:

[  ] Children, related or unrelated, such as newborn babies, grandchildren , or foster children
[  ] Relatives, such as adult children, cousins, and in-laws
[  ] Nonrelatives, such as roommates or live-in babysitters
[  ] People staying here temporarily
[  ] No additional persons

Grandchildren were added as another example of forgotten children. The questions appear to be making sure that people are not confusing "household" with "family" or "immediate family". The instructions also say to omit people away at college or in the Armed Forces, as well as those temporarily in a nursing home, prison, jail, or detention facility, to avoid double counting.

Does this person usually live or stay somewhere else?

Check boxes:

[  ] No
[  ] Yes, for college
[  ] Yes, for a military assignment
[  ] Yes, for a job or business
[  ] Yes, in a nursing home
[  ] Yes, with a parent or relative
[  ] Yes, at a seasonal or second residence
[  ] Yes, in a jail or prison
[  ] Yes, for another reason

This has been extensively reworded. In 2010, the question was whether a person "sometimes" lives or stays somewhere else. The 2020 wording is more consistent with the Census definition where a person is counted based on where they "usually" live. The Census Bureau probably prefers that a person be erroneously reported, who they can then remove, rather than risk not reporting them. 18 and 19 YO whites are usually the only over-reported group.

Most of the others responses have been changed. In 2010 there were No or Yes check boxes followed by check boxes for reasons. For 2020 there is a No check box, and then Yes box is changed to be part of the reason for responding Yes.

"In college housing" to "Yes, for college"
"In the military" to "Yes, for a military assignment"
... to "Yes, for a job or business"
"For child custody" to "Yes, with a parent or other relative"

Some of these are more purpose-based, for example, "for college" rather than "in college housing". Some people might literally interpret the 2010 response as being in a dorm, rather than a rented house off-campus. On the other hand, the purpose-based "for child custody" has been replaced with a more neutral wording.

The name of each person, and phone number are also specified.

I’m really happy they kept Middle Easterners in the White category, because as much as Islamaphobic Conservatives and SJW Liberals don’t want to admit it, Arabs, Iranians, Berbers, Turks, Azerbaijanis, Jews, Armenians, Georgians, and North Caucasians are Racialy Caucasoid (most of these groups can be confused with people from Southern and Southeastern Europe).

[Tender Branson]

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.

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

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.

[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.

[muon2]

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.

I'm not sure that the VRA part is an "excuse" on the part of the Census Bureau. I know from panel discussions going back to 2009 that this question of citizenship has been one they have wrestled with long before this administration. At one 2010 meeting expert redistricting lawyers were giving their best ideas for workarounds to try to be compliant with results from the prior decade's cases.

As recently as the 2000 Census, 1 out of every 6 households was sent the long form that included the same citizenship question in the 2020 draft. Cases were using VAP in the 1990's cycle, though for Latinos it was recognized that numbers well above 50% were needed (The 7th circuit went along with a threshold just under 60% for IL-4.) Courts weren't requiring it, and the long form needed to be moved out of the decennial Census, so the question was dropped for 2010.

After 2000 courts leaned move heavily on CVAP, and not just VAP,  because then all groups could be treated by the same use of the Gingles test when identifying that a minority made up 50% of a compact area. However, realization of the impact of those decisions on mapmakers came too late to affect the official list of questions. The courts have continued to move more in the direction of CVAP for the VRA, so shouldn't the correct data be available at the time the plan is prepared?

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.

[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?

[muon2]

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?

I would only say again that he citizenship question was in there up through the 2000 Census, and was only missing once - in 2010. It's true that the question didn't go to all households, but those long forms were treated just as rigorously as the short forms that went to the other 5/6 of the US. That treatment included follow up by workers in the field, so we have data from 2000 that can tell us how fairly and accurately the question can be collected.

One area where the past should be a guide are in the results from CA in 2000. This was after CA had started limiting access to services for illegal immigrants through prop 187 (1994). Undercounts in minority areas had been a problem for decades and were again in 2000. If reticence to participate increased because of a citizenship question, it should have been present in CA in 2000. I don't recall any particular stories that cited a concern that the long-form citizenship question would impact CA counts that year beyond the problems that were faced in 1990, but if there is a paper out there I would be interested in seeing it.

My point is that the controversy does not seem to be backed by either history or data. It seems purely political to me.

[King of Kensington]

Can one report multiple ancestries in the "race" category?

[jimrtex]

The bolded is false. The Census included the question up through 1950 (not sure exactly how far back), but it was dropped in 1960 out of concern that it conflicted with anti-discrimination considerations and the interest in ensuring a complete count and has not been included in any Census from 1960-2010. One should hardly be surprised that Censuses before 1960 were not exactly non-discriminatory.

Can you provide any contemporary evidence that the question was not included in the 1960 Census because of a concern that it conflicted with anti-discrimination considerations, or that that census before 1960 were discriminatory?

[jimrtex]

That you for educating him. The citizen number is included in the ACS survey, I don't see why that needed to change, other than to rig the census.

The ACS is a sample. The margin of error is large for small areas such as block groups.

[jimrtex]

The Citizenship question will probably lead to Texas and maybe Florida not getting their 3rd and 2nd additional congressional seats, respectively.    

California might miss out on gaining one as well, but that was already iffy anyway.

What is the probability of this happening? Eleventy-seven?

Why do you think that California was going to gain a 54th seat.

[Tender Branson]

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.

Why only for 2030 ?

That sounds rather politically motivated to me ...

The citizenship question can easily be implemented for the 2020 Census already, there's still enough time left. And besides, the Census Bureau will conduct several final test census operations over the next 2 years to see if the question will lead to lower response rates or not. Lower response rates are generally a trend recently, which have nothing to do with immigration or citizenship status, but more because people have become lazy and indifferent about surveys etc.

So, that's exactly why the Democrats need to step in after 2018 and launch a massive participation drive among their immigrant base and try to inform them about the Census process and that they have nothing to fear by taking part in it (otherwise they can also inform them that they are going to take the Trump organisation to court or will try to impach him ... which could not be needed anyway if he's defeated in 2020).

[jimrtex]

One of the purposes of the Census is to provide complete data, not merely estimates, of the population by block to be used in redistricting. Up through 2000 asking age and race was sufficient to get the voting age population required to test compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Court decisions leading up to the 2010 Census made it clear that for certain minority groups, especially Latinos, citizen voting age population was the correct measure for testing VRA compliance.

However the 2010 Census lacked a citizenship question and that posed real issues for the states and localities trying to draw plans that would comply with the VRA and be sure that they would stand up in court. There was ACS data with citizenship information at the time of the Census release, but the ACS geographies didn't match those of the Census since it was collected prior to the finalization of the 2010 Census boundaries. ACS data with the new geographical boundaries came out many months after the Census data, too late for some states that have early constitutional requirements.

Even if the Census had the manpower to process a round of the ACS while doing the decennial Census (they don't) it isn't available at the block level, but is aggregated by larger geographical units. The ACS is also just an estimate based on sampling so it has statistical errors, just like a political poll does. If that sample is small, as is the case for a 1-year sample, they can't even make estimates at the block group level and the data is too coarse for redistricting.

To get a good ACS sample that can really apply to redistricting at level needed by mappers the 5-year sample would be needed. But that means waiting over 5 years after the geography is finalized (typically 2 years before the Census) to get an ACS data set, so that might occur 2 years after the redistricting data is first released.

The other way would be to greatly increase the number of households that must answer the ACS in the year after the Census. Increasing the number probably means going back to the long form sent to 10% of all households. That again runs into the manpower problem since the Bureau is completely focused on preparing the Census during that year, and the ACS was designed to spread that workload more evenly through the decade. At that point the Census might as well just pick out the questions needed for redistricting under the VRA and include them in the standard Census form.

The MOE (90% confidence interval) for Harris County census tracts (2016 5-year ACS) is around 20% to 100%. The average is 41% (though this is totally bogus since this shouldn't be averaged this way. The very best is an 11.3% MOE for a census tract with 3600 non-citizens.

For Harris County as whole the MOE is only 1.1%, but that is hardly useful when the county can have 6 congressional districts.

[Tender Branson]

Anyway, the US Census process is extremely politicized IMO.

Here in Austria, or in Scandinavia, people don't even realize there's a census going on because it is register-based and current, in-depth data can be instantly compiled for every quarter of the year for a low cost. Including citizenship data of course.

And in the US, there's a hassle about this stuff even if it's done only every 10 years ...