The one potential Census question that terrifies leftists


#1

Liberals, in general, love the Census. It’s full of questions about race and sex, the common fault lines by which liberals love to divide society. They are even adding a question to the next Census to find out your favorite kind of sex, or approximation of it.

But one question liberals don’t want to know is whether the person answering the census is an American. They fear that if there is a question about citizenship, that illegal aliens won’t fill it out.

The Justice Department is pushing for a question on citizenship to be added to the 2020 census, a move that observers say could depress participation by immigrants who fear that the government could use the information against them. That, in turn, could have potentially large ripple effects for everything the once-a-decade census determines – from how congressional seats are distributed around the country to where hundreds of billions of federal dollars are spent.

Observers said they feared [that] adding a citizenship question would not only lower response rates, but also make the census more expensive …

Correct! It can take years for the government to figure out how to ask someone, “Are you a citizen of this country?”

“This is a recipe for sabotaging the census,” said Arturo Vargas, a member of the National Advisory Committee of the Census and the executive director of NALEO Educational Fund, a Latino advocacy group. “When you start adding last-minute questions that are not tested – how will the public understand the question?”

He’s 100% correct! If someone were to ask me, “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?,” I would have to ask, “Excuse me, but what do you mean by ‘citizen’? And what is this ‘United States’ and ‘America’ you speak of?” It’s totally confusing!

“People are not going to come out to be counted because they’re going to be fearful the information would be used for negative purposes,” said Steve Jost, a former top bureau official during the 2010 census. “This line about enforcing voting rights is a new and scary twist.”

I love liberal metaphors! If only Hollywood could produce the same kind of new and scary twists!

A recent Census Bureau presentation shows that the political climate is already having an effect on responsiveness to the bureau’s American Community Survey, which asks a more extensive list of questions, including on citizenship status, to about one in 38 households in the country per year. In one case, census interviewers reported, a respondent “walked out and left interviewer alone in home during citizenship questions.”

Hm. Do you think he had forgotten something he left cooking on the stove?

Left out of this pre-emptive hysteria is whether the Census should indiscriminately include non-citizens. Under the Constitution, congressional districts are supposed to have roughly the same population. But in districts that are heavily populated with illegals, some congressmen end up representing vastly fewer citizens than other congressmen. Shouldn’t districts be divided among equal numbers of citizens? You could make the argument that the Constitution is being violated, right now, by not doing so.

Furthermore, why should welfare payments and subsidies be divided based on total population rather than citizen population? Shouldn’t government expenditures benefit citizens, not illegal aliens? These are the discussions that liberals don’t want to have.

Questions for discussion:

  1. How many congressmen do you think places like Los Angeles, Miami, and New York would lose if the Census counted only citizens?

  2. We are expected to be able to do our own taxes but not understand the question “Are you an American?” Isn’t it convenient that liberals make taxes and regulations as complicated as they like, as it suits them, but when it comes to a simple four-word question that goes counter to their political agenda, suddenly they play the dummy card?

And the msms response? Predictable


#2

I am looking forward to this. They are going to lose a lot of seats if all of the illegals they’ve been packing in don’t count.


#3

Probably the number one reason the GOP must hold the House of Representin’ in 2018.


#4

I’m not an expert on US Electoral law but…if California has 40M people; yet half of that are actually citizens who can vote, do they lose that nice 50 point electoral map position…?

That would be nice to see.


#5

The NYTimes article is just a cynical cover for the open borders lobby… and of course protecting the many districts that have more voters than citizens living there. We could find that people like Maxine Waters has out sized influence in a district that is only half filled with citizens…

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has echoed Kobach’s argument, telling the New York Times that if American citizens were only counted in the U.S. Census for congressional districting purposes, the state of California — home to the largest illegal alien population in the nation — would “give up several congressional seats to states that actually honor our Constitution and federal law.”

“Only U.S. citizens should be represented in Congress,” King said.


#6

I don’t think if i moved to Mexico illegally that I would deserve representation.


#7

And you would likely wind up in jail…


#8

Well yeah, if you live in any of the southwest states you’ve already done that.


#9

So you’re an ‘Aztlan’ believer? That would explain some of your stances.


#10

I suppose you could go back to that, but certainly it was the Republic of Mexico that president Polk incited a war with in 1846 which culminated in the forceable annexation of half of Mexico’s territory.


#11

Yes and it was the land of the Incas and the Aztecs before the Spanish showed up - your point?

One ‘should’ (pc ya’ know) scold Mexico for having Spanish as their national language - it is the tongue of the oppressor and genocide. So why don’t you head on down to ole’ Mehico and perhaps during a futbol broadcast - grab the mic. and declare Mexico a racist hellhole for not speaking Nahuatl!


#12

The US is at fault with any past and future endevours according to hyper-partisan [meaning anti-american] John Montecresto.


#13

President Polk campaigned on a platform of manifest destiny. After winning the election he sent his special Envoy John Slidell to Mexico City with an offer to purchase New Mexico and California. Mexico territory however wasn’t for sale and the American Envoy wasn’t even received. Failing with that, President Polk stationed a small garrison of troops in the disputed territory between the rivers Neuces and Rio Grande which of course was recognized as an act of aggression which they responded to militarily prompting the US president to declare to congress and Americans largely that Mexico had entered US territory and attacked, a lie of course. The predecessors of the Republican Party (the Whigs) didn’t buy it and accused Polk of inciting a war of aggression and a land grab, which of course they were right. Mexico was threatened (at gun point) with the US pushing the border all the way to Mexico City if they didn’t sign the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.


#14

While it is fashionable among college kids and professors (who lack the wits to gain a PhD in something useful) to focus on whatever parts of history can be used to cast the US in a negative light; those with a longer scope of history see that at worst, the US engaged in behavior just like other powers of the time, and with no more cruelty or subterfuge than those who lost would have done were the power relationships reversed. Is our history perfect? Of course not, yet it is a great deal closer to being so when compared to other powerful nations.

Recency only magnifies the significance of wars for those unable or unwilling to recognize that the taking of what s now Mexico through murder and rape (conquistadors) is at least as reprehensible as a nation enticing another into warfare to capture land that allows it to look like a nation, and not a congressional district.

As to the question of who deserves the land - it’s who is on it now, who is doing something with it now, and who is improving civilization. That would be us 'Mericans.


#15

And I realize that it’s more fashionable to ignore those parts.


#16

It’s amazing to me that so called “progressives” display so much angst over events of two centuries ago.


#17

Well it’s not two centuries, and it didn’t end there. :wink:


#18

It Didn’t?.. what happened next?


#19

Much to the dismay of the left, while we can’t seem to get clean voter roles, after 2020 we will know for sure the demographic makeup of this country. No doubt representation will shift away from some blue states and towards red states and we will be able to see just how many people vote and how many people are actually, legally capable of voting


#20

Thank you Wilbur Ross !!
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced his decision to reinstate the citizenship question in a post on the Commerce website. The citizenship question has not appeared on the census since 1950, but Ross argued that collecting citizenship data has been “a long-standing historical practice."

In Article I, Section 2, the Constitution says that an “Enumeration” must be conducted every ten years “in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.” Congress has directed through a federal law that anyone who “refuses or willfully neglects…to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions” on the Census form can be fined $100 (13 U.S.C. § 221). If you deliberately give a false answer, you can be fined up to $500.

Illegal aliens who lie or who don’t fill it out will be breaking another federal law !