Serious question -- what do Trump supporters think the citizenship question was supposed to DO?

I agree. We should know these things and not try to ignore the information that unfairly undervalues the voices of our own citizens.

 

Its main purpose is to drive lefties even more batty. It has worked beautifully.

 

If you look at (D)'s shithole districts, you can see how little they actually care about their "voters". They prefer to legislate without input from "voters" so gerrymandering the EC is extraordinarily appealing. Free, and subsidized housing accounts for the high population density in (D)'s urban shitholes who've all adopted sanctuary policies ensuring increased population and greater EC representation. It's why Obama removed the citizenship question in 2010. Obama liked the EC map and the direction it's headed.

 

Serious question -- what do Trump supporters think the citizenship question was supposed to DO?

Determine how many citizens we have compared to residents. There isn't anything else it can do.

 

Yes, one of the two that's authorized by the Constitution, and neither of which is served by counting illegal aliens.

 

Interesting the UN recommends nations have a citizenship question, and that Canada and Mexico have one on their census.

 

Interesting opinion that you have. Why then do you suppose that a citizenship question has been on the long-form for so long ?

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census-Bureaus-Birthplace-and-Citizenship-Questions-One-Table

 

The same reasons it is on the annual American Community Survey which essentially replaced the long-form census. It's useful general data but doesn't need (or wouldn't achieve) the detailed granulation of being on the short-form census.

Simply putting the question on the short-form wouldn't really change anything. It would only change anything if the administration is planning on doing something specific with that data that it hasn't been willing to admit to.

 

You have managed to respond to my question, without actually answering my question. Are you implying that nearly all of the census planners since 1880 have been wasting their time with that question? Why did they ask the question? If it was worthwile to ask in 2000, why is it now not worthwhile?

As far as your statement about "detailed granulation".... What you are referring to is an example of statistical sampling. Theoretically at least, a statistical sample is supposed to be designed to represent the whole. While I am not an expert on the census, I imagine that with even the short form they are also using it as statistical sample because surely they make accomodation for a certain percentage that they know will not respond.

 

Wrong! Anybody who pays taxes is entitled to representation (for example). No taxation without representation!

In any case, it's ludicrous. The Supreme Court ruled on this over a century ago. It's not even in question except in the minds of xenophobes, racists and people who are clueless.

 

The real question OP is why do you want illegals to vote?

 

Yeah ... good luck with that. The Boston tea party rallying cry doesn't translate very well constitutionally speaking. Here's some mat'l that you should probably have someone explain to you. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html

 

It was an indirect answer to point out that what you're talking about is still happening. The question was on the long-form census and is on the ACS which effectively replaced the long-form so nothing has really changed. Adding it to the short-form is something new and that's why that needs specific justification. Simply saying "It was on the long-form" isn't really sufficient.

Sure, in a way. I was specifically referring to the difference between the long-form and ACS, which are only sent to a subset of the population and the short-form, which is sent to everyone. The short-form will give more granular results but there is a question as to why that additional granularity would be required for the citizenship element specifically. That question hasn't been answered by the administration, certainly not to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court.

 

It's the only one stated in the Constitution. Therefore, any other purpose that may in any way hinder this one will need to be abandoned.

 

So you think that a 5% sampling to estimate the whole on the long form is ok, but an (est) 80% sample to estimate the whole is out of bounds? I fail to see the consistency in your logic. Citizenship and non citizenship dispersion is either a valid concept to ascertain or it is not. You seem to be saying that it is not, yet every census since 1880 with the exception of two have attempted to ascertain that data. Why is it so different now versus the last 140 or so years? Is your position just another "Orange Man Bad" declaration?
​

The word granular sounds fancy and all, but we are still simply talking about an attempt to ascertain a specific data set. If your argument is that a 5% sampling is ok but a larger sampling is not, I fail to see the wisdom in your position.

 

No it isn't ... "you haven't read" the constitution.

 

So they have been doing it wrong since 1880? Did you raise this issue when Clinton presided over the 2000 census? Or is this yet another example of your irrational hatred for the Orange Man?

 

1. Tell each voting precinct roughly how many voters they can expect.

2. Return the census to the apolitical function it was before Obama pulled it into the White House and made it a function to give Democrats some political advantage.

3. Enable us to track demographic trends, an ability we had before Obama removed the question to hide something.

 

The reason the question was removed is because Democrats embrace misinformation, that's their weapon against anything logical.. The more corrupt or vague the information the better their base reacts to it..

 

Those key points are exactly what the democratic party "doesn't" want.. Just like everything the leftist party rails about is half truths and partial/select information to fool their foolish base in to believing..

 

To determine how many non- citizens are in the country.

 

For what purpose? And how will it be an accurate count when we know illegal immigrants won't likely fill the form out or answer truthfully? It was elsewhere argued that we already have a good count of green card and visa holders.

 

itical Opinions & Beliefs>

Expose that the totalitarian state of California has more registered voters than there are U.S.citizens in California who are eligible to vote.

 

For the same purpose as the "race" question.

 

I’m not saying it isn’t OK, only that the change (with its associated costs and risks) hasn’t been shown to be necessary. It’d be OK to ask people how many green shirts they own but it wouldn’t be necessary.

The administration has apparently failed to give a convincing answer (or any really) to the question of why they need the question on the short form given that largely the same data will already be available for the ACS and other sources. Higher accuracy could be a valid reason but it isn’t one they’ve tried to make. “Why not?” doesn’t really cut it IMO.