Remembering TCPaul, 2016-2019

2019 Dems: Why is it ok

Not to ask for citizenship status on a census application bu demwave04/02/19
Racist anotherjd04/02/19
The reason it is not OK is because the purpose of the census onehell04/02/19
Frankly, non-citizens shouldn't count. The purpose for the qdllc04/04/19
The question is neutral. Yes you are correct about us wantin demwave04/02/19
Again, we don't have to agree about whether they are "law br onehell04/02/19
That's a feature not a bug tho triplesix04/02/19
I don’t know. It’s just dividing the pie. If sanctuary doublefriedchicken04/04/19
So let me get this right? CA and the 9th Circuit flout the i demwave04/02/19
Bullseye. TITCR ^^^ cacrimdefense04/02/19
Checkmate brokelawyer04/02/19
".... how about taking some unilateral action to resolve the uknownvalue04/02/19
Let us start by doing something that is truly extraordinary: demwave04/02/19
GOP does not support e-verify... I wonder why? triplesix04/02/19
Enforcement of immigration laws is the exclusive territory o onehell04/02/19
If CA has gained 1 million illegals, for example, that are c demwave04/02/19
Again, I'm pretty sure the same census has to be administere onehell04/02/19
"If CA has gained 1 million illegals, for example, that are therewillbeblood04/03/19
If you want the Constitution changed, petition your represen therewillbeblood04/03/19
Why should undocumented count in the census? Should foreign underemployedlawyer04/02/19
The Constitution says to count the undocumented, but doesn't therewillbeblood04/03/19
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_ and_politics/map_of_the_w midlaw04/03/19
But there’s no difference between undocumented and foreign underemployedlawyer04/03/19
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several Stat therewillbeblood04/03/19
Did they envision tens of millions of people illegally livin underemployedlawyer04/03/19
They would have found it weird that the US was barring peopl therewillbeblood04/03/19
You can still count by including the question in citizenship demwave04/03/19
Also the question doesn’t distinguish illegal aliens from underemployedlawyer04/03/19
What part of the Constitution gives the federal government t therewillbeblood04/03/19
What about the other questions they ask that you don’t gav underemployedlawyer04/03/19
How do you know what I have an issue with? therewillbeblood04/04/19
Maybe it does violate the constitution and maybe it doesn't. onehell04/03/19
?????? Are you insane? Asking a fact question does not viol demwave04/03/19
See the problem right there? Whether "determining whether il onehell04/04/19
Arguing with demwave is a lost cause. He’s the platonic id midlaw04/03/19
Well it'd be nice if it were argued on here, truly and with onehell04/04/19
"Lower court (N.D. Cal.) found that the question violates th jeffm04/04/19
Not enumerated powers, enumeration clause. As in, the clause onehell04/04/19
Like always, I have a problem with demwave's characterizatio superttthero04/04/19
The problem with "we should only count citizens in the censu onehell04/04/19
That they needed a compromise to deal with slaves shows that superttthero04/04/19
OK then again, why would the framers count non-landowners? O onehell04/04/19
So despite that procedures from the 1800s has been terminate demwave04/04/19
LOL. Yes. The rich land-owner elite with 50 slaves and some superttthero04/04/19
Of course they sucked that is what I am saying! I am making demwave04/04/19
"So despite that procedures from the 1800s has been terminat therewillbeblood04/04/19
I do and run 5 miles a day on top of it? You? demwave04/04/19
Amplification of the "illegal presence" in the country viola demwave04/04/19

demwave (Apr 2, 2019 - 1:53 pm)

Not to ask for citizenship status on a census application but ok to ask for race, ethnic or veteran status on a job application?

Do you think that if I refuse to answer the job application questions, and to be fair I do have that option, that my job application wont be adversely affected? How can I be sure of that? Your word?

Reply
anotherjd (Apr 2, 2019 - 2:22 pm)

Racist

Reply
onehell (Apr 2, 2019 - 3:18 pm)

The reason it is not OK is because the purpose of the census is to count the number of people in the country, and asking a citizenship question will likely prompt undocumented immigrants not to answer at all, which makes the count less accurate:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-census-undercount-idUSKCN1R32BV

When you make the count less accurate, it's not the undocumented immigrants that it hurts. It's you and me. The fact is that whether you like it or not, our local public schools are educating the children of undocumented immigrants. They drive on our roads etc etc. A lot of funding sources are tied to the census and those funding sources benefit the taxpaying voters in those communities. So if the count is inaccurate it can lead to a reduction in federal funds which means reduced services (or increased local taxes) for YOU. Not the "illegals" that trump's fans hate so much. You.

So if a community is not getting credit for the number of people it is actually serving, regardless of whether those people are "supposed to be there" or not, it is simply a matter of fact that discouraging people from answering leads to less accurate data. That shouldn't be a partisan issue. You're trying to measure how many people are in a given location, which is a constitutional responsibility. You should want that number to be as accurate as possible. It's about nothing more or less than making sure that you have accurate data on which to base decisions.

Reply
qdllc (Apr 4, 2019 - 12:02 pm)

Frankly, non-citizens shouldn't count. The purpose for the census is the apportionment of representatives in the House. Anyone not in the country legally should not be able to shift the balance of a state's representation in the federal government. If that state wants to let such people in contrary to established law, they should not be rewarded for it.

Reply
demwave (Apr 2, 2019 - 3:25 pm)

The question is neutral. Yes you are correct about us wanting to measure people correctly. However if they cant speak for themselves we cannot count them. WE CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR HURT FEELINGS. If these people are illegal they are law breakers not simply undocumented people. Since when do we condone law breaking? Does not law breaking just simply encourage more law breaking? Moral hazard ever hear of that?

Also the biggest objectors to this questios are also the same jurisdictions that have the most LAX LAX LAX illegal alien regulations. CA CA CA CA anyone? So you cannot "create" a problem then point to the same problem as a reason to perpetuate it? Capiche?

Reply
onehell (Apr 2, 2019 - 3:27 pm)

Again, we don't have to agree about whether they are "law breakers" (though technically being in the country without authorization is not in and of itself a crime, but rather a civil matter)

But again, that doesn't matter. If you hate these people you should want them counted all the more, simply because higher population = more $$ for your community. For stuff YOU use. Stuff that won't have to be either cut back or local taxes increased to pay for. If YOUR kids have an overcrowded classroom because money that helped YOUR school hire teachers is lost because a bunch of latinos didn't get counted, well their kids are still in that classroom and your kids are worse off because now there aren't enough funds for an acceptable student/teacher ratio. Like it or not, it's a fact. Inaccurate data leads to inaccurate decisions, period.

Local communities lose money when the census count is inaccurate. People seem to think it is somehow a just punishment for the "illegals" if they aren't counted. It doesn't punish them. Not being counted in the census hurts them in no way shape or form. An inaccurate count only hurts you and your community. The idea that "illegals don't count" may seem appealing to some folks in the abstract, but the practical reality is that not counting them takes money right out of your own pocket.

Reply
triplesix (Apr 2, 2019 - 3:33 pm)

That's a feature not a bug tho

Reply
doublefriedchicken (Apr 4, 2019 - 7:55 pm)

I don’t know. It’s just dividing the pie. If sanctuary cities get less, then that’s more for the MAGA crowd. Might encourage a less welcoming policy.

Reply
demwave (Apr 2, 2019 - 3:48 pm)

So let me get this right? CA and the 9th Circuit flout the immigration laws. Now it wants illegals "accurately" counted so it can get more of other states money for a problem it was responsible for creating? If illegals are causing a problem in your social services budget how about taking some unilateral action to resolve the problem of their presence in lieu of getting other states to ante up for it.

What about CA robbing other states of electoral votes based on this synthetic "amplification" of the illegal presence in within the state. Does this not present issues?

Reply
cacrimdefense (Apr 2, 2019 - 3:52 pm)

Bullseye. TITCR ^^^

Reply
brokelawyer (Apr 2, 2019 - 3:59 pm)

Checkmate

Reply
uknownvalue (Apr 2, 2019 - 4:46 pm)

".... how about taking some unilateral action to resolve the problem ..." to what action are you referring?

Reply
demwave (Apr 2, 2019 - 5:23 pm)

Let us start by doing something that is truly extraordinary: enforce the EXISTING LAWS that were passed by duly elected members of Congress of both parties!

Reply
triplesix (Apr 2, 2019 - 5:32 pm)

GOP does not support e-verify... I wonder why?

Reply
onehell (Apr 2, 2019 - 5:52 pm)

Enforcement of immigration laws is the exclusive territory of the feds. If they want to step up enforcement they can go ahead, but there is this misguided notion that states can do various things to make life miserable for undocs in hopes that they will "self-deport." But of course cooperating with ICE detainers and denying in-state tuition doesn't cause people to self-deport. Cracking down on employers might, but that would mean more regulation of business which is generally not something republicans can get behind.

If the real agenda is to incentivize ICE cooperation and whatnot and penalize states that don't play ball, then it's a stupid means to that end because you can't have one version of the census in a cooperative state and another version in a sanctuary state/city. And it would also be unconstitutional to even try to create a "punitive census" and a separate census for friendly states because the constitutional mandate is to simply count the people.

And BTW, the number of electoral votes you get is based on the number of congressional seats which is population based yes, but the overall number has been frozen since 1913. So it's highly doubtful that having a bunch of undocs has bought any state even a single electoral college vote. And in any event, if you want undocs not to count as people for purposes of such population counting, then you'll need to amend the constitution for same reason it had to be amended to get rid of the three-fifths compromise, albeit in reverse.

Reply
demwave (Apr 2, 2019 - 7:35 pm)

If CA has gained 1 million illegals, for example, that are counted in the census it will gain congressional seats from states that lose population. It is a zero sum game. Do you need me to break this down for you further? Or are you in denial that California has that many illegals?

California is a state that has frustrated ICE. You can't say it is a federal matter, you do it, then frustrate the feds.

Reply
onehell (Apr 2, 2019 - 11:57 pm)

Again, I'm pretty sure the same census has to be administered in all 50 states, so I'm not sure why California's actions or inactions are relevant. If the administration wants to punish California for "frustrating ICE" then there are presumably other ways to do it that won't hurt cooperative and non-cooperative states alike. Plus, California is a massive state. There are municipalities there that are quite conservative, I'm sure, that wouldn't deserve such consequences even viewed through the eyes of a trumpeteer.

Punishment aside, I haven't heard anyone say it would result in CA losing congressional seats, nor do I think you have the data to support that claim.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 3, 2019 - 7:56 am)

"If CA has gained 1 million illegals, for example, that are counted in the census it will gain congressional seats from states that lose population. It is a zero sum game. Do you need me to break this down for you further? Or are you in denial that California has that many illegals?"

Irrelevant. The Constitution states the census is to count everybody. If you don't like that, petition your representative to begin the amendment process.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 3, 2019 - 7:55 am)

If you want the Constitution changed, petition your representative to begin the amendment process.

Reply
underemployedlawyer (Apr 2, 2019 - 8:42 pm)

Why should undocumented count in the census? Should foreign tourists count?

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 3, 2019 - 7:57 am)

The Constitution says to count the undocumented, but doesn't say to count foreign tourists.

Reply
midlaw (Apr 3, 2019 - 1:47 am)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/02/map_illegal_immigrant_population_by_state.html

Reply
underemployedlawyer (Apr 3, 2019 - 8:23 am)

But there’s no difference between undocumented and foreign tourists for purposes of the census . Neither should be counted if undocumented are the tourists should to at least tourists have permission to be here

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 3, 2019 - 8:49 am)

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State"

Their "respective numbers" clearly refers to people living there, not just passing through.

Reply
underemployedlawyer (Apr 3, 2019 - 8:51 am)

Did they envision tens of millions of people illegally living here?

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 3, 2019 - 8:53 am)

They would have found it weird that the US was barring people from entry.

In any event, who cares what they envisioned? The Constitution says what it says. If you don't like it, you know what to do...

Reply
demwave (Apr 3, 2019 - 9:10 am)

You can still count by including the question in citizenship. That doesn't violate the constitution.

Reply
underemployedlawyer (Apr 3, 2019 - 9:12 am)

Also the question doesn’t distinguish illegal aliens from people legally present but not citizens like green card holders h1bs etc.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 3, 2019 - 10:24 am)

What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to ask people about their citizenship?

Reply
underemployedlawyer (Apr 3, 2019 - 10:33 am)

What about the other questions they ask that you don’t gave an issue with?

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 4, 2019 - 10:56 am)

How do you know what I have an issue with?

Reply
onehell (Apr 3, 2019 - 6:06 pm)

Maybe it does violate the constitution and maybe it doesn't. And there's both statutory and constitutional issues. The case is pending before SCOTUS right now, and trump is the appellant. Lower court (N.D. Cal.) found that the question violates the enumeration clause as well as the 1976 census act.

To me, seems pretty clear that a question designed to undercount the population when the constitutional obligation is to count them accurately is pretty clearly an "arbitrary and capricious" administrative decision as the lower court found, but guess we will see what SCOTUS thinks.

Reply
demwave (Apr 3, 2019 - 6:56 pm)

?????? Are you insane?
Asking a fact question does not violate anything!
California courts be damned! It isnt designed to undercount the population but determine other things: whether illegal immigration is a problem or not among others. The CA court will be overruled!

Why is race, sex and ethnicity relevant on a job application? You dont have to answer as there is a box for refusing to answer. Maybe that same box should exist on census form????
See what I am saying?

Reply
onehell (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:04 pm)

See the problem right there? Whether "determining whether illegal immigration is a problem or not" is a permissible purpose of the census is a significant legal question in itself, even if you accept the idea that it won't throw off the numbers.

Reply
midlaw (Apr 3, 2019 - 9:03 pm)

Arguing with demwave is a lost cause. He’s the platonic ideal embodiment of Dunning-Krueger.

Reply
onehell (Apr 4, 2019 - 1:47 pm)

Well it'd be nice if it were argued on here, truly and with open minds, because that's the sort of posting activity that's fun. I, for example, can be argued with and my mind can be changed. After all, the case is now at SCOTUS. If there weren't valid arguments on both sides then cert wouldn't have been granted. However, I certainly think it isn't constitutional and at least I can say right now that a federal judge agrees, lol.

Reply
jeffm (Apr 4, 2019 - 12:19 am)

"Lower court (N.D. Cal.) found that the question violates the enumeration clause..."

How on earth could anything usurp Congress' enumerated powers anymore? We've seen all about "necessary and proper," "interstate commerce," etc. I am sort of surprised to hear a ruling from a CA federal court that the federal government is not empowered to do something.

Reply
onehell (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:06 pm)

Not enumerated powers, enumeration clause. As in, the clause that says the people must be enumerated for purposes of determining congressional representation etc. The idea is that the constitutional obligation involves making sure that the enumeration (of people, not powers) is accurate as possible.

Reply
superttthero (Apr 4, 2019 - 12:43 pm)

Like always, I have a problem with demwave's characterization of the issue. He brings up silly red herrings and strawmen. LOL he's asking about job applications and the census as if they are the same thing. He blames small-to-large and varied entities as some monolithic enemy. The 9th circuit, liberals, the left, Obama... but I have to agree with him that the question is not an issue.

The main purpose of the census is to apportion representatives, and to me, a plain reading, given that only citizens can vote for those representatives, is that we should only count citizens in "the census." If congress needs some other metric to get a straight population count to more adequately fund things like road projects, let them pass a law or commission a study or some other tally that isn't tied to the make-up of the Federal government to get that figure.

Reply
onehell (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:12 pm)

The problem with "we should only count citizens in the census" is that the framers explicitly rejected it. In fact, they partially counted people who were not even considered fully human by many at the time. That is how the three-fifths compromise got adopted at the 1787 constitutional convention. The very fact that the three-fifths compromise was adopted by the framers shows in itself that the framers never intended to limit the definition of "person" to people with the full rights of citizenship. Plus of course, the US had open borders at the time. From the founding of the US until I think the early 1900s almost anyone who could manage to physically get here could live here.

Also, of course at the time of adoption only landowners could vote in most states. And only men. And yet congressional apportionment was certainly not based on the people who could vote for those representatives. If anything, there was a greater disparity between those being counted and those who could vote for the seats created by that count than there is now. They never didn't count women in the census, for example, even though women couldn't vote.

So conservatives, who usually claim allegiance to Scalia-style originalism, would have no case for the argument that "person" means "citizen" based on any appeal to who can or can't vote. People who couldn't vote were counted in the census literally at the time of the constitutional convention.

Reply
superttthero (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:21 pm)

That they needed a compromise to deal with slaves shows that the counting non-citizens was an issue, and at that time to fix that dispute, they came up with the three-fifths compromise. When did they "explicitly" reject "we should count only citizens?"

As far as aliens, I think the expectation back then was that they (aliens) would eventually, easily be citizens, although I don't know what the naturalization were mechanism was like back then.

There is a reason why we first look at the plain reading under todays' understanding first, and if that creates ambiguity then we look at the drafter's intent. It's impossible sometimes to determine what their intent today would be given American's place in the world, the population we are at, and the host of other factors.

As I read it: Census determines reps, reps are voted by citizens only, so it follows that the census is to count voters, i.e. citizens.


Edit: you edited as I wrote. Your point about land owners is a good one.

Reply
onehell (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:22 pm)

OK then again, why would the framers count non-landowners? Or women? Or convicted felons? Or anyone else who didn't have the right to vote? The decision was clearly to base the count on population, not voting-eligible population.

Edit: Ah yes, NM I see your edit in response to my edit :)

Reply
demwave (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:26 pm)

So despite that procedures from the 1800s has been terminated, 3/5 compromise, Dred Scott, women not voting(and rightly so I might add) YOU ARE NOW GOING TO GO BACK TO THOSE GOOD OLD DAYS TO POINT OUT THAT WE COUNTED PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T VOTE THEN SO WE SHOULD COUNT THEM NOW!
This is silly reasoning. It was wrong then and it is also wrong now! The fact that something insidious went on continuously for 100 yrs., and erroneously so, does not mean it is right now! It was actually wrong then and it is wrong now!

This was a reason for war in the civil war. Packing the confederacy with slaves, who didnt vote, gave disproportionate, electoral vote power, to the Southern states! Look the election of 1860! Breckenridge had few popular votes but many electoral votes but of this nonsense.

By the way they didnt count people in 1800 for purposes of social services. There were not any then. Used to be no welfare state! Everybody pulled his weight!Those were the days.

Reply
superttthero (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:34 pm)

LOL. Yes. The rich land-owner elite with 50 slaves and some indentured servants was pulling his weight. The mine operators that were basically running death traps for meager wages were solid people. Everyone was happy and industrious. MAGA

Dude, the 1800 sucked. WTF are you smoking?

Reply
demwave (Apr 4, 2019 - 2:40 pm)

Of course they sucked that is what I am saying! I am making a sarcastic remark! Bezos works hard too and pays 80 yr. olds min. wage plus $1.45 and hr. why does nobody attack that pig?

Reply
therewillbeblood (Apr 4, 2019 - 5:34 pm)

"So despite that procedures from the 1800s has been terminated, 3/5 compromise"

Through Constitutional amendment.

"Dred Scott"

Through Constitutional amendment.

"women not voting"

Through Constitutional amendment.

"Everybody pulled his weight!Those were the days."

Do you pull your own weight?

Reply
demwave (Apr 4, 2019 - 5:48 pm)

I do and run 5 miles a day on top of it? You?

Reply
demwave (Apr 4, 2019 - 3:18 pm)

Amplification of the "illegal presence" in the country violates the Voting Rights Act by..............well you figure out! There was no VRA in 1800 right?

Oral argument April 23!

Reply
Post a message in this thread