Trump announces executive order aiming to obtain accurate count of citizens in the US

Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution calls for an “enumeration” to be made of the populace “within every subsequent term of 10 years.”

The number of seats each state holds in the House of Representatives depends entirely on census results.

The first census turned up only 3.9 million (non-Indian) Americans, including nearly 700,000 slaves, a result that President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and other high-ranking government officials dismissed as an undercount. “Our real numbers will exceed, greatly, the official returns of them.”

Obviously, the Founding Fathers, concerned with undercounts, had ample reason not to conflate calculating the populace with counting eligible voters.

All females would have been excluded from the count if eligible voters had been their criterion.

It wasn't. The Constitution specifies that the census is an enumeration of the populace.

populace [ pop-yuh-luh s ] all the inhabitants of a place; population.

​

 

The Electors?

 

Thursday morning, Trump mouthpieces declared that Fake Don would take executive action instructing the Commerce Department to add the question back to the 2020 census. That would have brought the inevitable new legal challenges, and a slim likelihood of success. The move likely would have been ruled unconstitutional—since Congress, not the president, has constitutional authority over the census. It would have have been blocked by the same federal courts that originally ruled against the question.

Trump, accordingly, reconsidered his scheme:

​

 

One way or another Donny will count American citizens.The only reason the Democrats are freaking out about census question is the number of illegals in the USA.They know it's well over 20 million and they don"t want the public to know.

 

Your misrepresentation of what immigrants are actually like in order to support these superstitions is feels over facts. The vast majority of our immigrants are law abiding (hell, they are more law-abiding than native born Americans) and of course they provide benefits. That's why they get hired. I love how your entire argument consists of pretending that low-skilled workers are worthless and that there are no high-skilled immigrants. Hilarious, and just as false as Trump administration's lies about the visa lottery. As for wealthy white immigrants, I've never said a word of complaint about them. Take it up with an actual leftist once you understand what that word means.

Immigrants make America stronger, and as far as our Founders go, they gave us essentially open borders. There were no visas. There were no green cards. "Coming here legally" consisted of stepping over the border or stepping off the boat, which is how my ancestors came here (and likely yours too). I'm advocating for more restrictions than our Founders placed, but not much more -- criminal background checks, evidence of economic self-sufficiency or a sponsor, etc.

Thanks for the correction on Melania and chain migration though, I appreciate it.

 

Not when the reason that was uncovered was expressly to subvert the purpose of the census and the administration did a poor job of trying to make up another excuse to try to pretend that wasn't their reason.

 

Then compare it to the number of votes each district records.

 

"Trump announces executive order aiming to obtain accurate count of citizens in the US"

it will be like the voter fraud investigation, if he finds most illegals are in republican states he will stop the investigation

it's just like Trump's internal polls, he supports data he likes and ignores the data he doesn't, Trump doesn't look for the truth

 

Detroit, now there's a Republican city.

 

I remember in 2017 when Pres Trump wanted states to hand over election data to an auditing commission and so many of them refused. Makes one wonder if they had something to hide.

 

I'm sure they do.

 

Really.

Having a category of citizen and non-citizen subverts the purpose of the census huh? Tell us more.

Regardless, a question is either legal or illegal...constitutional or un-constitutional.

 

The purpose was to undercount. The purpose was subvert the Constitutional duty of the census.

 

Ah the age ole tactic of mixing immigration types.

Yes, legal immigrants are more law abiding. Why? They can get kicked out for committing crimes.

Illegal immigrants are not more law abiding, since they broke the law as soon as they entered, just for starters. Their very presence here is a crime.

No, they don't provide us benefits. They're a net drain.

But sure. The same people who tell us that low skill jobs are going away are the same people who tell us we need more non-skilled labor.

You know what else we didn't have in 1776? Welfare and 4.5 billion dollar payments for people who don't even speak the language.

If they were coming to be Americans, there wouldn't be $625 billion in remittances flowing from our country to foreign ones.

 

How does one under-count when you count both citizens and non-citizens.

Does asking if you're female under-count anyone?

 

Because fewer people will respond, according to both the Census Bureau and the guy who made the initial push for this question.

 

Sure, just like the 375 flavors of lgbtquia*52 won't answer because they're agorasexual or whatever.

Your assumption is ridiculous.

If you think the majority of Americans don't see the crying over the question for exactly what it is, you're wrong.

 

Yes ... probably does. ::

 

They are the "assumptions" of both the author of the question and the Census Bureau itself. If you seriously believe that this would not have resulted in an undercount, you are likely the only one who has actually bought that.

 

That's fine with me, that would have been $5k each we could have fined them for not answering.

But honestly, who cares. The left can thrash around on the hook all they want. They'll just get reeled in exhausted.

 

Anti-immigrant posters always seem to have a problem with the concept of NET costs/revenue. How much money would we have had to spend on enforcement to collect that $5k? The Census Bureau told the administration that there were better options for estimating illegal immigrant numbers than self-reporting on the Census, and that these options would have the upshot of not forcing an undercount on the Census. So why not go with the better option from the beginning if their goal was accuracy? Why did they have to be painted into a corner in order to choose the better option?

 

If your wondering why no one buys your arguments start here.

Federal law provides that anyone who refuses to answer or willfully neglects to answer any of the questions in connection with any census or survey shall be fined a maximum of $100, or a maximum of $500 if the person gives false information.

 

Well, Democrats and a conservative Supreme Court.

 

It's a shame.

A simple search on commie-Google would have revealed reality to you, then your statement wouldn't look so foolish.

Do your homework next time.

https://www.census.gov/ec17faqs#par_textimage_7

8. What is the penalty for not responding?


The census law (Title 13, United States Code, Section 224), coupled with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Title 18, Sections 3551, 3559, and 3571), provides for penalties of up to $5,000 for failure to report, and $10,000 for intentionally providing false information.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ble-for-not-filling-out-your-census-form.html

The Census Bureau likes to stress the positive benefits of participation in the survey, but the proverbial stick does exist. Under Title 13 of the U.S. Code, you can be fined up to $100 for refusing to complete a census form and $500 for answering questions falsely. However, the Website for the U.S. Census Bureau points out that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 effectively increased these minimum fines to $5,000. Noncompliance used to bring the possibility of a 60-day prison sentence and a one-year prison term for false answers, but Congress struck those provisions in 1976.

 

Yeah I have the problem.

Tell me more about how deporting someone is more expensive than giving them and their children welfare for the rest of their lives.