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

You kept getting the subtraction wrong, but even the subtraction would require accurate numbers . . . which you are now shying away from. These are still BOTH problems with your subtraction explanation. Problem 1) You offered two false subtraction formulas and 2) Even when you do get the formula right, the math won't work if people won't answer/answer truthfully.

So you argued the purpose was about getting this number . . . and now you admit it won't necessarily do that . . . and are trying to pretend it no longer matters? See, now THAT is how you shift a goalpost. Grats.

 

Even the most recent finding said that the question wasn't un-Constitutional.

They just wanted a reason.

Hello geniuses on the court.....if it's not un-Constitutional, it doesn't need a reason.

 

Lol, you've been trying to argue that "persons" and citizens are the same thing . . . and just admitted that they aren't. The Constitution sometimes addresses citizens and other times addresses the wider "the people." This is how the SC has always seen it and this is the way anyone with basic literacy skills has read it. Your interpretation has NEVER been the way our government has operated.

 

I never said it was unconstitutional to ask. I asked for the reason. The "subtraction" argument has failed on multiple fronts.

 

Well you have got him to the personal attack stage.. Now your in for a day of nonsense and much more insults

 

Hi straw man. Nice to meet you. I thought you didn't like it when people misrepresented posts?

 

Right ... what's the basis of the lawsuit? Have the liberal plaintiffs established a reason it's illegal to ask about citizenship? Roberts is a f*cking idiot.

 

Try reading the post. The references to talking slower and the 4th grade . . . were from his post.

 

Ya just like the one below Soon as you get shown your error you start trolling and insulting!

 

I replied to the stupid notion that the citizenship question would be made Constitutional, as if a judge or something other than a Constitutional Amendment can change that.

I don't need to hear bullshit numbers about how many times a question was put on the census. Either post the times with proof, or don't. It takes more than your mouth to convince me.

What difference does any of this make when the Supreme Court tells you the reason to add the citizenship question is contrived? That is the final word.

 

To what end though? Why do the government need the (possible) increased level of granularity that could be provided by the short-form census over all the data they already have access to from all sorts of different sources? What are they going to do with that data that they don't/can't already do? "I don't know" is a valid answer here but demonstrates the fundamental problem.

 

Really? Point it out?

​

 

I'm not getting anything wrong. You just lack understanding either a) because you're incapable of understanding it or b) because you don't want to understand it.

It really is quite simple.

I will explain in the simplest terms possible.

The government has a database with the number of green cards they have issued. (I'll use small numbers for you).

Let's say they issued 10 green cards that are still active.

Let's say we tabulate the census and 50 people say they're "non-citizens".

We subtract the "legal immigrants" (10) from the number of "all immigrants" (50).

When we subtract 10 from 50, we arrive at 40 non-legal immigrants (i.e illegal aliens). Usage of a calculator may be required depending on your voting habits on this step.

As for the rest of your nonsense:

I didn't admit it won't do anything and I didn't pretend it didn't matter.

Keep swinging.

 

Nobody is claiming that in order to put on a citizenship question one must have a constitutional amendment, EXCEPT YOU of course. I correctly pointed out to you that based on historical precedent, such a declaration is embarassingly wrong. You were ignorant, and now that I have shared knowledge with you about historical precedent, you have the tools necessary to render yourself NOT ignorant. You are welcome.

I can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. If your ignorance continues, it is on you.

 

You still can't figure out simple math?

You are really digging yourself a gigantic hole here.

Who do you think you are kidding?

You could just admit you were wrong and move on.

Will you?

I doubt it.

 

No. I'm stating for a fact that "We the people" applies to US citizens period. If you can be deported you aren't a citizen and you are not entitled to representation. Yes, our government dictated who representation was given to. Hence the constitutional amendments. Our government dictates who gets put in detention, who gets to stay, who gets deported. The SCOTUS doesn't write or ratify constitutional amendments. The SCOTUS doesn't write immigration law. If you're a US citizen you should sue the public school system.

 

Sure, except for the part where the government has operated by not letting certain groups vote, not giving certain groups representation, and having asked the same question through most of our history.

Other that that you're doing great.

 

Do courts rule on the viability of a reason, or on the Constitutionality of an act or a law?

 

I can think of a couple reasons off the top of my head without even trying......

-It would give us greater clarity to exactly how many non citizens that we have living here which can be used to guide future policy and to determine whether we have 5 million or 30 million illegals which is truly not known at this time.

- It would give us greater clarity as to where non citizens are dispersed which can be used to guide future policy and government dollars

The question that I would have for you is why are you so opposed to having more versus less information on an issue that it is safe to say is at or near the forefront of modern political debate? Whether or not we have 5 or 30 million illegals is sort of important to know don't ya think? Surely trying to get more accurate information on that topic is worthwhile even if it is impossible to be 100% accurate.

 

What was Trump's real purpose for the citizenship question? To enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act? No one is that stupid, but Trump thinks the courts are that stupid.

By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might not have been counted if the citizenship question had appeared on census forms. Courts have found that Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas might have each lost seats in the House as a result and a loss of federal funds.

“Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” Trump said recently. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.” Trump's No. 1 enemy is Trump.

The real reason for the GOP strategy behind the citizenship question is provided by Thomas B. Hofeller, and the Justices know this.
Hofeller, a Republican strategist who died last summer, had written a report in 2015 saying that adding a citizenship question to the census would give Republicans a significant advantage in drawing new legislative district lines.

The 2015 report concluded that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. Months after urging Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.

Everything else Trump, his lawyers, and his fans say is pure B.S.

BTW, his lawyers are in the Department of Justice. Barr is doing a hell of a job representing the President.

 

If non-citizens don't include themselves in the census, which is the entire strategy behind the citizenship question, how is that possible? How do you get the count of non-citizens and where they are?

 

If any citizen doesn't include themselves in the census, they too are missed in the count, and without question, there is a certain percentage that either do not respond or respond inaccurately. This is a problem that is not exclusive to illegal immigrants. While I am not an expert on all things census, my guess is that they have a multiplier that is used to estimate the effects of non-participation for citizens and non-citizens alike. This question has been on the long-form for many decades, and if you are going to say that a higher percentage of non-citizens are not going to respond, then putting it on the short form and thus having less statistical sampling surely would provide a more accurate result then would a smaller statistical sample from the long-form.

 

Holy cow, let's clear this up shall we.

The primary purpose of the census is to determine, based on population (not citizenship), how many seats each state will have in the House and by extension, how many votes in the EC. But census data is used for other purposes as well, including the allocation of federal spending. That money helps pay for everything from public schools and Medicaid benefits to law enforcement and highway repairs. State and local governments use the data in similar ways, including setting the boundaries of legislative districts.
Adding the question is a central element of a Repub strategy to try to shift political boundaries to the party’s advantage when the states begin using the new census to redraw their district maps in 2021. It goes hand in hand with efforts to suppress the votes of targeted groups by enacting voting ID laws and with the national strategy of gerrymandering the GOP has been employing. All designed to combat the demographic trends that are shrinking the base of GOP voters. It also enables Repubs in Congress to ignore the will of the majority on any number of issues from climate to healthcare to gun control because gerrymandering has made their re-election all but a certainty.
IOW, the census question is about political power.

 

LOL, the census still counts all people in the country.

 

And your dream world and the actual US are two different things. "People" has never been limited to citizens in our country.