The Official 2020 Census Thread

[Tender Branson]

MS did indeed end up at 99.9% completion with the plug pulled.

https://2020census.gov/en/response-rates/nrfu.html

LA, as the only state with less than 99.9%, ended at 98.6%

Even though the Census Bureau pulled the plug, it will still accept postal questionnaires postmarked by yesterday and received by October 22.

But it is unlikely that this will increase LAs rate. Why would a lot of people from the hurricane area Shreveport send in such forms ?

Still, it’s good that 49 states did so well.

I expect a population of 335 million (5 million more than estimated for April 1) and a delivery by December 31.

But hopefully without the patchy immigrant-less numbers that Trump wants for reappointment.

I’d be generally in favour of reappointment using only citizenship data, but the US doesn’t have the data it takes ...

[Kevinstat]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

[cinyc]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

There's a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court about whether illegal aliens must be counted for apportionment purposes.

The bigger issue is that a delayed apportionment count and data release will put the states that must redistrict in early 2021 under their laws in a bind. So time is of the essence.

[Kevinstat]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

There's a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court about whether illegal aliens must be counted for apportionment purposes.

The bigger issue is that a delayed apportionment count and data release will put the states that must redistrict in early 2021 under their laws in a bind. So time is of the essence.

I hadn't realized that issue was still pending.  That explains why Democrats were hoping for a delay in the release of the apportionment numbers.

I agree that procedurally, it works much better if the numbers are released on schedule (in December of this year for the apportionment counts and by April 1 for the redistricting data).  It also means I won't have to wait as long to start drawing plans for various districts, with a Maine focus but probably some elsewhere (I get into Vermont Senate districts where there's no limit in the number of Senators per district, and the number currently varies from 1 to 6).

[jimrtex]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

There's a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court about whether illegal aliens must be counted for apportionment purposes.

The bigger issue is that a delayed apportionment count and data release will put the states that must redistrict in early 2021 under their laws in a bind. So time is of the essence.

I hadn't realized that issue was still pending.  That explains why Democrats were hoping for a delay in the release of the apportionment numbers.

I agree that procedurally, it works much better if the numbers are released on schedule (in December of this year for the apportionment counts and by April 1 for the redistricting data).  It also means I won't have to wait as long to start drawing plans for various districts, with a Maine focus but probably some elsewhere (I get into Vermont Senate districts where there's no limit in the number of Senators per district, and the number currently varies from 1 to 6).

The Supreme Court will hear the case on counting of illegal aliens on November 30.

[jimrtex]

MS did indeed end up at 99.9% completion with the plug pulled.

https://2020census.gov/en/response-rates/nrfu.html

LA, as the only state with less than 99.9%, ended at 98.6%

Even though the Census Bureau pulled the plug, it will still accept postal questionnaires postmarked by yesterday and received by October 22.

But it is unlikely that this will increase LAs rate. Why would a lot of people from the hurricane area Shreveport send in such forms ?

Still, it’s good that 49 states did so well.

I expect a population of 335 million (5 million more than estimated for April 1) and a delivery by December 31.

But hopefully without the patchy immigrant-less numbers that Trump wants for reappointment.

I’d be generally in favour of reappointment using only citizenship data, but the US doesn’t have the data it takes ...

It does have the data to use citizenship for redistricting purposes.

Oddly enough, one of the plaintiffs in the Census lawsuit, Harris County, Texas gave an example of how they used census data was that they used it to localize language resources with respect to COVID-19. The district court cited that as the rationale for giving them standing.

There is only language data on the ACS, not on the main Census.

[Tender Branson]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

There's a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court about whether illegal aliens must be counted for apportionment purposes.

The bigger issue is that a delayed apportionment count and data release will put the states that must redistrict in early 2021 under their laws in a bind. So time is of the essence.

I hadn't realized that issue was still pending.  That explains why Democrats were hoping for a delay in the release of the apportionment numbers.

I agree that procedurally, it works much better if the numbers are released on schedule (in December of this year for the apportionment counts and by April 1 for the redistricting data).  It also means I won't have to wait as long to start drawing plans for various districts, with a Maine focus but probably some elsewhere (I get into Vermont Senate districts where there's no limit in the number of Senators per district, and the number currently varies from 1 to 6).

The Supreme Court will hear the case on counting of illegal aliens on November 30.

The "counting of illegal aliens" ?

That's wrong:

The SC has already ruled that there's no citizenship question ... and there wasn't any on the forms.

So, what the Census Bureau could use is highly questionable data from the states, patchwork at best, that estimates the number of illegals in a county or state and then use those guesstimates to apportion. This would produce the worst apportionment data ever.

Either do it right (with a citizenship question on the forms), or don't do it at all ...

[jimrtex]

The fact that the last ACOs will only finish their work in mid-October shows how essential the court order was to force the Trump admin and Census Bureau to continue counting and quality controls until October 31.

I see it the other way: the fact that almost all ACOs would wrap up their work by October 5 proves how political the court and plaintiffs are.  Their real motive is to stop Drumpf from completing the Census on time.  If we're all done by October 15, why not let Census move on to processing?

I asked this on another thread, but why does it matter who the President is when the apportionment numbers come out?  Is a potential adjustment for not counting illegal immigrants still a possibility (I thought that issue had been settled against what Trump had hoped for)?  Or is there some other way the President (either a President Trump or a President Biden) could adjust the numbers if that person were President at the time the numbers were released?

Thanks.

There's a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court about whether illegal aliens must be counted for apportionment purposes.

The bigger issue is that a delayed apportionment count and data release will put the states that must redistrict in early 2021 under their laws in a bind. So time is of the essence.

I hadn't realized that issue was still pending.  That explains why Democrats were hoping for a delay in the release of the apportionment numbers.

I agree that procedurally, it works much better if the numbers are released on schedule (in December of this year for the apportionment counts and by April 1 for the redistricting data).  It also means I won't have to wait as long to start drawing plans for various districts, with a Maine focus but probably some elsewhere (I get into Vermont Senate districts where there's no limit in the number of Senators per district, and the number currently varies from 1 to 6).

The Supreme Court will hear the case on counting of illegal aliens on November 30.

The "counting of illegal aliens" ?

That's wrong:

The SC has already ruled that there's no citizenship question ... and there wasn't any on the forms.

So, what the Census Bureau could use is highly questionable data from the states, patchwork at best, that estimates the number of illegals in a county or state and then use those guesstimates to apportion. This would produce the worst apportionment data ever.

Either do it right (with a citizenship question on the forms), or don't do it at all ...

the president's memorandum said to the extent feasible.

It has been suggested that persons detained in ICE facilities be excluded, as well as those incarcerated and subject to deportation orders.

[jimrtex]

MS did indeed end up at 99.9% completion with the plug pulled.

https://2020census.gov/en/response-rates/nrfu.html

LA, as the only state with less than 99.9%, ended at 98.6%

Even though the Census Bureau pulled the plug, it will still accept postal questionnaires postmarked by yesterday and received by October 22.

But it is unlikely that this will increase LAs rate. Why would a lot of people from the hurricane area Shreveport send in such forms ?

Still, it’s good that 49 states did so well.

I expect a population of 335 million (5 million more than estimated for April 1) and a delivery by December 31.

But hopefully without the patchy immigrant-less numbers that Trump wants for reappointment.

I’d be generally in favour of reappointment using only citizenship data, but the US doesn’t have the data it takes ...

There was in fact a last minute surge in self-responses, with 6 states plus DC having 0.2% increases, including NM, LA, and MS. Only 8 states had 0.0% change.

These were overwhelmingly Internet responses. I think reports from the Census are based on Midnight EDT, so there could be some more, plus Internet forms in the mail.

[jimrtex]

These is one ACO. that had not reached 98% NRFU by October 15. This ACO represents 0.4% of all ACO. One ACO reached 98% on October 15.

Shreveport, LA finally had a decent day of 0.9%, but still only reached 91.0% NRFU. This bumped the average daily rate to 0.44%, and would have meant Shreveport would have reached 98.0% by October 31 (incidentally, Austrian census day).

Window Rock, AZ added +1.1% to reach 98.3%.


10-01 ####################### (23)
10-02 ################# (17)
10-03 ################# (17)
10-04 ############## (14)
10-05 ######### (9)
10-06 ############## (14)
10-07 ########## (10)
10-08 ####### (7)
10-09 ################ (16)
10-10 ## (2)
10-11 # (1)
10-12
10-13
10-14 # (1)
10-15 # (1)
10-16
10-17
10-18
10-19
10-20
10-21
10-22
10-23
10-24
10-25
10-26
10-27
10-28
10-29
10-31 # (1) Shreveport, LA

For each ACO, the current NRFU completion percentage, the average daily completion rate for the previous seven days, and projected date to reach 98%.

91.0 (0.44%, 10/31) Shreveport, LA (western and northern Louisiana)

10-16 through 10/30

98.3 (0.97%, 10/15) Window Rock, AZ (Navajo reservation)

[jimrtex]

234 ACO (95.5%) reached 99.9% NRFU completion by October 15, including 46 that reached on the 15th.

After hitting 182 ACO, on the 12th, completion appeared to stall as some ACO retrogressed, adding new NRFU cases. These were unlikely to be missed housing units. but rather cases added for quality control, or perhaps checking responses. Maybe they were cases which were closed after 6 unsuccessful visits, and they decided to try some more.

They tended to follow an odd pattern, dropping the NRFU completion by 0.2% to 1.0% or more, and concentrated in certain geographical areas.

But it appears on October 15, that an effort was made to close all cases. Perhaps they decided that if a 7th visit was not possible, to re-close the case.

The number of ACO's below 99.9% went from 57 to 11 on the last day, and five of those eleven are at 99.8%.

The ACO below 99.9%

91.0% Shreveport, LA was behind from the start, and then had two hurricanes pass through.

98.3% Window Rock, AZ strong effort to reach 98%, but not enough to finalize.

99.0% Jackson, MS finishes strong adding 1.9% in the last two days.

The above three were the only ones who had no opportunity to close out hard cases. All those that follow were close, but may have dropped back.

99.3% Williamson County, TX an early Texas leader but then dropped back from 99.3% to as low as 98.3%, and was only able to get back to 99.3%

99.7% San Antonio North, dropped from 99.6% to 97.5%, and added back 2.2% on the final two days.

99.6% Dallas County NE, TX never seemed to close out.

99.8% Spokane, WA didn't quite finish.
99.8% Shelbyville, TN just never finished everything.
99.8% Asheville, NC didn't quite finish.
99.8% Manhattan 2, NY didn't quite make it, while 8 other NYC and 2 LI ACO reached 99.9% on last day.
99.8% Providence, RI dropped from 99.9% to 98.5% on 2nd to last day, and recovered all but 0.1%.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Based on previous census-related case law, my prediction is that SCOTUS will rule that since the number of illegal immigrants was not actually enumerated, they can't be subtracted from the totals and then punt on the issue of what could have been done had they been enumerated.

[Tender Branson]

More evidence that the 2020 Census has been a success and of higher quality than the 2010 one:

As of October 15, approximately 5.6 percent
of addresses nationwide have been
completed using high-quality administrative
records, which is 13.9 percent of the NRFU
workload. We use administrative records
when census taker efforts to contact the
housing unit are unsuccessful and our analysis
shows very high confidence the administrative
records are complete and correct.

Completing 13.9 percent of the NRFU workload
using administrative records is much
lower than our expected 22.5 percent of cases
with high-quality administrative records that
would have been used if the first visit was not
a successful enumeration or a self-response
was not received.

As of October 15, approximately 24.1 percent
of occupied housing units in the NRFU
workload have been enumerated by proxy
response, which is similar to the 2010 rate.

The 2010 Census Nonresponse Followup Operations
Assessment Report2 notes that 23.8 percent
of the Nonresponse Followup interviews for
occupied housing units were conducted using
proxy respondents.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2020/nrfu-deadline-completion-rates-faq.pdf

[jimrtex]

Based on previous census-related case law, my prediction is that SCOTUS will rule that since the number of illegal immigrants was not actually enumerated, they can't be subtracted from the totals and then punt on the issue of what could have been done had they been enumerated.

There are some illegal aliens who are either in ICE detention facilities, or incarcerated in federal or state prisons with a deportation order on completion of their sentence.

[jimrtex]

237 ACO (96.7%) reached 99.9% NRFU completion by October 16, including 5 that reached on the 16th. Two ACO slipped back, leaving 8 ACO below 99.9%.

The ACO below 99.9%

93.9% Shreveport, LA added 2.9% on Friday.

98.9% Window Rock, AZ adds another 0.6%

99.6% Manhattan 2, NY dropped another 0.2%

99.7% Quincy, MA slipped back on Friday

99.8% Jackson, MS added another 0.6%, may actually reach 99.9%.

99.8% Asheville, NC didn't quite finish.

99.8% Providence, RI dropped from 99.9% to 98.5% on 2nd to last day, and recovered all but 0.1%.

99.8% Manhattan 1, NY slipped back on Firday

These 5 ACO finished up on October 16 (percentage is as of October 15)

99.8% Shelbyville, TN
99.8% Spokane, WA
99.7% San Antonio North, TX
99.6% Dallas County NE, TX
99.3% Williamson County, TX

[jimrtex]

MS did indeed end up at 99.9% completion with the plug pulled.

https://2020census.gov/en/response-rates/nrfu.html

LA, as the only state with less than 99.9%, ended at 98.6%

LA is now at 99.0%.

Self response reaches 67.0%.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Based on previous census-related case law, my prediction is that SCOTUS will rule that since the number of illegal immigrants was not actually enumerated, they can't be subtracted from the totals and then punt on the issue of what could have been done had they been enumerated.

There are some illegal aliens who are either in ICE detention facilities, or incarcerated in federal or state prisons with a deportation order on completion of their sentence.

And how will these be matched up to the census enumeration?  Color me skeptical about the impartiality, as well as the adequacy of potential matching techniques save for those in custody on April 1 itself.

[Tender Branson]

More evidence that the 2020 Census has been a success and of higher quality than the 2010 one:

As of October 15, approximately 5.6 percent
of addresses nationwide have been
completed using high-quality administrative
records, which is 13.9 percent of the NRFU
workload. We use administrative records
when census taker efforts to contact the
housing unit are unsuccessful and our analysis
shows very high confidence the administrative
records are complete and correct.

Completing 13.9 percent of the NRFU workload
using administrative records is much
lower than our expected 22.5 percent of cases
with high-quality administrative records that
would have been used if the first visit was not
a successful enumeration or a self-response
was not received.

As of October 15, approximately 24.1 percent
of occupied housing units in the NRFU
workload have been enumerated by proxy
response, which is similar to the 2010 rate.

The 2010 Census Nonresponse Followup Operations
Assessment Report2 notes that 23.8 percent
of the Nonresponse Followup interviews for
occupied housing units were conducted using
proxy respondents.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2020/nrfu-deadline-completion-rates-faq.pdf

If I'm reading this correctly, here's the final enumeration of all households:

67% by self-response
18% by census takers speaking with the owner/renter themselves
  9% by proxy response (neighbours, landlords etc.)
  6% by using "high-quality administrative records"

Final self-response was 66.5% in 2010, therefore 2020 has a better rate on this one as well.

[jimrtex]

Based on previous census-related case law, my prediction is that SCOTUS will rule that since the number of illegal immigrants was not actually enumerated, they can't be subtracted from the totals and then punt on the issue of what could have been done had they been enumerated.

There are some illegal aliens who are either in ICE detention facilities, or incarcerated in federal or state prisons with a deportation order on completion of their sentence.

And how will these be matched up to the census enumeration?  Color me skeptical about the impartiality, as well as the adequacy of potential matching techniques save for those in custody on April 1 itself.

You aren't making a legal argument.

President Trump's order limits itself to feasibility.

You would agree that an alien on a 3-month visitor's visa who happens to be staying in a transitory location (hotel, campground, RV Park) when it is enumerated should not be counted, while citizens where that is their current residence would be counted.

For example, a traveling salesman may have no permanent residence. If it can't be determined where he sleeps the most, it is the hotel where he sleeps on April 1. The same may be true for full-time RV'ers.

If that alien overstays his visa should he be counted? Maybe he hadn't been able to visit some national parks during a COVID-19 quarantine, and he just decided to stay a little longer.

Persons who do not have a right of residency, can not lawfully be residents in the United States. Citizens of course have a right of residency, as do permanent resident aliens. Those are the persons contemplated as being counted under the 14th Amendment.

Trump's executive order is consistent with the Constitution, even if the Clinton administration (2000) and Obama administration (2010) did count some persons that they should not have.

Prisons and ICE detention centers are group quarters. Typically, they are enumerated by those in control. It might be feasible to match those records.

[jimrtex]

More evidence that the 2020 Census has been a success and of higher quality than the 2010 one:

As of October 15, approximately 5.6 percent
of addresses nationwide have been
completed using high-quality administrative
records, which is 13.9 percent of the NRFU
workload. We use administrative records
when census taker efforts to contact the
housing unit are unsuccessful and our analysis
shows very high confidence the administrative
records are complete and correct.

Completing 13.9 percent of the NRFU workload
using administrative records is much
lower than our expected 22.5 percent of cases
with high-quality administrative records that
would have been used if the first visit was not
a successful enumeration or a self-response
was not received.

As of October 15, approximately 24.1 percent
of occupied housing units in the NRFU
workload have been enumerated by proxy
response, which is similar to the 2010 rate.

The 2010 Census Nonresponse Followup Operations
Assessment Report2 notes that 23.8 percent
of the Nonresponse Followup interviews for
occupied housing units were conducted using
proxy respondents.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2020/nrfu-deadline-completion-rates-faq.pdf

If I'm reading this correctly, here's the final enumeration of all households:

67% by self-response
18% by census takers speaking with the owner/renter themselves
  9% by proxy response (neighbours, landlords etc.)
  6% by using "high-quality administrative records"

Final self-response was 66.5% in 2010, therefore 2020 has a better rate on this one as well.

.056 x National_Addresses = .139 x NRFU_Workload
NRFU_Workload = .403 x National_Addresses.

Note: NRFU_Workload is not number of addresses to be resolved by NRFU. It is a number used in the other calculations. Also, self responses that happen after NRFU begins count as NRFU completions. They thus are in the numerator of both the self-response rate and the NRFU completion rate.

Proxy = NRFU_Workload x .241 = .403 x National_Addresses x .241
Proxy = .097 x National_Address

NRFU_Enumerated = (1.000 - .670) x National_Addresses - Proxy - High-Quality

NRFU_Enumerated = (.330 - .097 - .056) x National_Addresses

NRFU_Enumerated = .177 x National_Addresses

Self_Response = 67.0%
NRFU_Enumerated = 17.7%
Administrative = 5.6%
Proxy = 9.7%

Note that NRFU_Enumerated, Administrative, and Proxy may all include vacant housing units.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Persons who do not have a right of residency, can not lawfully be residents in the United States. Citizens of course have a right of residency, as do permanent resident aliens. Those are the persons contemplated as being counted under the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution, both originally and as amended, never contemplates the easy transportation and communication we enjoy today.  Furthermore, it wasn't until the 20th century that the US imposed limits on how many people could emmigrate here.  The people who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Constitution never even contemplated unauthorized immigration^*, let alone the level of unauthorized immigration that we have.  There is no originalist interpretation to be had here.

Moreover, you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting my point, tho I admit, I did leave much to context, as I thought it wasn't needed to be explicitly repeated by me for readers to understand my point.  The Courts have consistently rejected all attempts to use estimates of any sort to adjust Census results.  Hence, except where it can be shown that specific persons enumerated in the Census are unauthorized immigrants, I can't see the Court allowing the count to be adjusted.  This has nothing to do with whether or not unauthorized immigrants should be counted, but everything to do with the requirement for the Census to be an actual count.

^*It wasn't even until the Page Act of 1875 that any limits on immigration of free persons existed, and those limits were based on national origin, not quantity.  Previous Naturalization Acts had only restricted which immigrants were eligible to become citizens.

[jimrtex]

Persons who do not have a right of residency, can not lawfully be residents in the United States. Citizens of course have a right of residency, as do permanent resident aliens. Those are the persons contemplated as being counted under the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution, both originally and as amended, never contemplates the easy transportation and communication we enjoy today.  Furthermore, it wasn't until the 20th century that the US imposed limits on how many people could emmigrate here.  The people who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Constitution never even contemplated unauthorized immigration^*, let alone the level of unauthorized immigration that we have.  There is no originalist interpretation to be had here.

Moreover, you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting my point, tho I admit, I did leave much to context, as I thought it wasn't needed to be explicitly repeated by me for readers to understand my point.  The Courts have consistently rejected all attempts to use estimates of any sort to adjust Census results.  Hence, except where it can be shown that specific persons enumerated in the Census are unauthorized immigrants, I can't see the Court allowing the count to be adjusted.  This has nothing to do with whether or not unauthorized immigrants should be counted, but everything to do with the requirement for the Census to be an actual count.

^*It wasn't even until the Page Act of 1875 that any limits on immigration of free persons existed, and those limits were based on national origin, not quantity.  Previous Naturalization Acts had only restricted which immigrants were eligible to become citizens.

Illegal aliens by definition are not inhabitants. They have no right to residency - to be inhabitants.

The Census has regularly excluded visitors, even though they are "persons" and are "in" the United State. Moreover they have included "persons" who are not "in" the United States, and used administrative records to do so. These practices continue.

Your argument is not that illegal aliens should be included in the census, but that it may be difficult to exclude them.

You have assumed certain things in Trump's executive order that are not actually present.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-excluding-illegal-aliens-apportionment-base-following-2020-census/

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Persons who do not have a right of residency, can not lawfully be residents in the United States. Citizens of course have a right of residency, as do permanent resident aliens. Those are the persons contemplated as being counted under the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution, both originally and as amended, never contemplates the easy transportation and communication we enjoy today.  Furthermore, it wasn't until the 20th century that the US imposed limits on how many people could emmigrate here.  The people who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Constitution never even contemplated unauthorized immigration^*, let alone the level of unauthorized immigration that we have.  There is no originalist interpretation to be had here.

Moreover, you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting my point, tho I admit, I did leave much to context, as I thought it wasn't needed to be explicitly repeated by me for readers to understand my point.  The Courts have consistently rejected all attempts to use estimates of any sort to adjust Census results.  Hence, except where it can be shown that specific persons enumerated in the Census are unauthorized immigrants, I can't see the Court allowing the count to be adjusted.  This has nothing to do with whether or not unauthorized immigrants should be counted, but everything to do with the requirement for the Census to be an actual count.

^*It wasn't even until the Page Act of 1875 that any limits on immigration of free persons existed, and those limits were based on national origin, not quantity.  Previous Naturalization Acts had only restricted which immigrants were eligible to become citizens.

Illegal aliens by definition are not inhabitants. They have no right to residency - to be inhabitants.

The Census has regularly excluded visitors, even though they are "persons" and are "in" the United State. Moreover they have included "persons" who are not "in" the United States, and used administrative records to do so. These practices continue.

Your argument is not that illegal aliens should be included in the census, but that it may be difficult to exclude them.

You have assumed certain things in Trump's executive order that are not actually present.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-excluding-illegal-aliens-apportionment-base-following-2020-census/

Did you even bother to read my post? I explicitly stated my argument had nothing to do with whether or not unauthorized immigrants should be counted, but that if anyone is to be removed (or added), they must actually be counted, not estimated.

Like most EOs, Trump's is quite vague and general and given the way Trump's administration has done things, I don't trust that they won't be removing only unauthorized immigrants from the count or that they will necessarily remove them from the right places.  If you want people to trust the Trump administration to do things correctly, it would help if they didn't keep effing things up all the time.

[Tender Branson]

The Census Bureau thanks the Americans today:

The End of 2020 Census Data Collection, Next Steps, and a Heartfelt Thanks

October 19, 2020
WRITTEN BY: DR. STEVEN DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR

We completed data collection for the 2020 Census on October 15, 2020. Every decennial census makes history, but this was like no other in living memory. Over the coming days, weeks and months, we will provide periodic updates on our post-processing efforts. We are working hard to deliver complete and accurate state population counts as close to the Dec. 31, 2020, statutory deadline as possible.

Our first look at the data collection operation indicates an extremely successful execution. We published our total response rates on a daily basis, and they show that we accounted for 99.9% of all addresses in the nation.

All states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, achieved total response rates over 99.0%. All but one state was at or above 99.9%. The state of Louisiana and our field staff who worked hard to complete Nonresponse Followup operations deserve our congratulations and thanks for getting the total response rate over 99.0% complete even with the devastating effects of hurricanes Laura and Delta.

While other quality measures for the 2020 Census will be produced over time, it helps to look at self-response rates as an initial metric. Our final self-response rate for the 2020 Census was 67.0%, compared with the final self-response rate for 2010 of 66.5%. Generally, better data comes from self-response, but after a decade of global decline in census and survey participation along with the challenges presented by COVID-19, we had not expected to beat the 2010 self-response rate. This would not have been possible without our partners and new technologies. The 2020 Census benefited from the strong support of nearly 400,000 dedicated community and national partners who contributed to our efforts to achieve a complete and accurate count of the nation’s population. The internet proved to be the easiest and preferred option for self-reporting.

Each and every partner played an important role, whether they hung posters in store windows, formed a Complete Count Committee, hosted a Census Solutions Workshop in their community, encouraged their employees to respond, or highlighted why the census is important for their social media followers. These efforts were vital in our shared work to encourage all communities to participate in this once-a-decade constitutional responsibility.

Our partners served as trusted voices and census ambassadors within their communities, and their outreach raised awareness of the 2020 Census and encouraged response — particularly among those who have been historically hard to count. Partners included corporations, small businesses, nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, members of Congress, state and local officials, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) stakeholders, the faith-based community, and many others.

When COVID-19 turned everyone’s plans upside down, our partners rose to the occasion with creativity and perseverance. In-person events became virtual events. Outreach turned digital with video messages, Facebook Live events, and other online engagements. Some communities sponsored socially distanced car parades through neighborhoods. There were census songs to engage kids and census characters to greet bus riders.

From America’s largest employers to your local coffee shop, to all levels of government, and civic organizations in every community, partners of all kinds stepped up. On behalf of the thousands of employees of the U.S. Census Bureau, thank you, and congratulations on the tremendous impact you made in shaping your community’s future by promoting the 2020 Census.

With data collection for the 2020 Census concluded, we at the Census Bureau want to keep working with you. We will continue to provide information on the 2020 Census going forward, including to our national partnership and community partnership teams. We encourage you to sign up today to receive updates.

We hope our work together extends beyond the once-a-decade-count. The Census Bureau conducts more than 130 surveys and programs each year, and helps local and national organizations use the data throughout the decade.

We encourage you to continue making Census Bureau data work for you and your community. It can help you make more informed decisions that improve business planning, government and nonprofit services, and the quality of our lives.

The Census Bureau values your continued partnership, and we look forward to collaborating and working with you again soon!

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/director/2020/10/the_end_of_2020_cens.html

[jimrtex]

Persons who do not have a right of residency, can not lawfully be residents in the United States. Citizens of course have a right of residency, as do permanent resident aliens. Those are the persons contemplated as being counted under the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution, both originally and as amended, never contemplates the easy transportation and communication we enjoy today.  Furthermore, it wasn't until the 20th century that the US imposed limits on how many people could emmigrate here.  The people who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Constitution never even contemplated unauthorized immigration^*, let alone the level of unauthorized immigration that we have.  There is no originalist interpretation to be had here.

Moreover, you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting my point, tho I admit, I did leave much to context, as I thought it wasn't needed to be explicitly repeated by me for readers to understand my point.  The Courts have consistently rejected all attempts to use estimates of any sort to adjust Census results.  Hence, except where it can be shown that specific persons enumerated in the Census are unauthorized immigrants, I can't see the Court allowing the count to be adjusted.  This has nothing to do with whether or not unauthorized immigrants should be counted, but everything to do with the requirement for the Census to be an actual count.

^*It wasn't even until the Page Act of 1875 that any limits on immigration of free persons existed, and those limits were based on national origin, not quantity.  Previous Naturalization Acts had only restricted which immigrants were eligible to become citizens.

Illegal aliens by definition are not inhabitants. They have no right to residency - to be inhabitants.

The Census has regularly excluded visitors, even though they are "persons" and are "in" the United State. Moreover they have included "persons" who are not "in" the United States, and used administrative records to do so. These practices continue.

Your argument is not that illegal aliens should be included in the census, but that it may be difficult to exclude them.

You have assumed certain things in Trump's executive order that are not actually present.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-excluding-illegal-aliens-apportionment-base-following-2020-census/

Did you even bother to read my post? I explicitly stated my argument had nothing to do with whether or not unauthorized immigrants should be counted, but that if anyone is to be removed (or added), they must actually be counted, not estimated.

Like most EOs, Trump's is quite vague and general and given the way Trump's administration has done things, I don't trust that they won't be removing only unauthorized immigrants from the count or that they will necessarily remove them from the right places.  If you want people to trust the Trump administration to do things correctly, it would help if they didn't keep effing things up all the time.

Yes I did read your post. You said that there was no originalist interpretation. Yet we know that the the Constitution excluded Indians not taxed. They were believed to not have allegiance to the United States, and while they were within territory of the United States, they were not of the United States. From the very first census, visitors were excluded, and persons were counted at their place of residence. "respective numbers" of South Carolinians doesn't make sense if you include persons passing down I-95 between Florida and New York.

It is not relevant whether there were airplanes in 1787 or 1866, or whether Congress had passed any laws regarding immigration before 1875.

Illegal aliens (persons who are not US citizens or US nationals whose presence in the US is unlawful) can not be considered resident in the United States since they can be deported at any time. It is in the President's discretion to exclude them from the apportionment counts. It does not matter whether previous presidents did not - whether that was due to choice or indifference.

You are making a political argument with regard to the competency of the Trump administration. That is not a legal basis for an injunction.

Overseas employees (military and civilian) of the United States government are included in the apportionment counts. They are not enumerated, but included in the counts based on administrative records.

It may be feasible to exclude some, if not all, illegal aliens on the basis of administrative records in a similar fashion.

You are making assumptions about the manner in which any illegal aliens would be excluded from the apportionment count. It was premature of the district court to enjoin the administration.

If there are illegal aliens who are improperly excluded from the apportionment count, that can be litigated down the road, if an when, that actually occurs.