So listening to Joy Reid this AM about the 2020 census and citizenship question.

[Fla Dem]

I can't remember the last time a census taker knocked on my door. I seem to think I've done the census with a form sent in the mail. So what happens if I don't answer the citizenship question? What happens if millions of people refuse to answer the question?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. They only knock on your door if you don't send in the form.

I had one of the temp jobs for the Census in 2010 and it was quite interesting. I was in a local office where we collected the forms and made sure they were complete.

It was astonishing how many people refused to fill out the form, often claiming the census was unconstitutional, which shows how incredibly ignorant of the constitution most people are. It should be taught in school, and each and every article should be read and discussed. And it should start in about fifth grade, so that there's time for it to be learned and sink in.

[Igel]

9. I've known people who have refused to completely answer their census form.

They say the only purpose is a headcount for redistricting, so they give just that information. They were pseudo-survivalists under Carter. I knew some quasi-preppers who did the same thing in 2010 for the same reason. They didn't trust the president and his government.

The rest of the questionnaire is beyond what the constitution requires. Not without amusement value, the current debate includes people on the left arguing that including the citizenship question is unconstitutional precisely on the same grounds--it's not required, and should be struck off the form. (Of course, all the other questions aren't constitutionally required, but they feel that those are okay because they give information *they*, personally, find valuable. My view: If we limit it to what the Constitution requires, per their argument, they basically cut off their own legs below their knees and they lose their much favored questions. I'm okay with either solution.)

I'm in Texas. My 8th grader went through the Constitution this year, section by section, and then each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. They even had to dress up appropriately and hold their own little constitutional convention in class for which each student picked one of the amendments and argued for it or against it, using the arguments adduced at the time by the historical figure they were filling in for. They've hit later amendments in historical order, but 8th grade history stops at 1865; I figure they're in the 1840s about now. Then in 11th grade they review the first portion and then proceed to the present. Currently my school's reached the 1980s and the kids learned all about the ERA and Schafly's opposition to it, and next week they'll probably get to the end of the Cold War and then Bill Clinton. (Showing just how wise and intelligent 16-year-olds are, they were amazed when I knew all about this crap. They seemed a bit put out when I said I'd better know all about the '80s, I was in my 20s at the time and learned about them one day at a time as I lived through the '80s one day at a time. It was some of the smartest who were the most foolish.)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. Oh, I know.

I saw what some of those idiots put on their forms, or what they said to the census taker at the door.

I am genuinely pleased to know your 8th grader is learning the Constitution this year. I had a senior year class that was Arizona history and government one semester, American Problems the other, and it's probably the only class I took in high school that I apparently learned nothing in. I can remember a lot of content from all of my other classes, but not that one. I'm almost positive we did not go through the Constitution section by section, because I'd remember. Sounds like your school is wonderful the way it teaches it.

[MichMan]

2. Why not answer the question ?

Since the law prohibits Census information being shared within government agencies, why is there so much angst over answering the question. Just simple ignorance about the census ?

[HipChick]

3. What law? Do you see this administration following many laws?

[MichMan]

4. This one from 1978

This law from 1978 prohibits data being shared for 72 years. Penalty is 5 years in jail and 250K fines


https://www.census.gov/about/policies/privacy/data_protection/federal_law.html

[HipChick]

5. and who is exactly holding them accountable to anything?..

[bluestarone]

6. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I won't fill out that question!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ms. Toad]

7. A move that could cost blue states votes and $

While the personally identifiable data is kept sealed for more than 7 decades, the aggregated data is not and is used for all sorts of things: allocating funding and votes, among them.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible to redistrict based on people, rather then voters, it has not excluded redistricting based on voters. If Democrats refuse to answer the question, leaving more voters/citizens in red areas, the red areas will disproportionately get more votes - should the party currently in control of vote allocation decide to play hardball and test the opening the Supreme Court left.

Health care dollars, allocated based on citizenship, would be heavily weighted to red states.

Anything else based on citizenship would also go more heavily to the places where people said, "Yes, I'm a citizen."

Nose . . . face . . . snip - that'll show you!!

[bluestarone]

8. Not entirely sure about this! Will check it out further

[Fla Dem]

12. Not talking about not filling out the census form, just not answering that question.

[Ms. Toad]

13. I understand that - which I think is clear from my explanation.

So, again.

What do you think a Republican government might do when faced with tons of citizens in red areas and none in blue areas? Perhaps send more resources to the places based on citizenship, instead of population?

Same thing with redistricting. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court allowed allocation of voting rightson the basis of population - BUT - they did not rule out the constitutionality of other schemes (such as the allocation of voting rights on the basis of eligible voters (i.e. citizens).

If all of the Republicans declare their citizenship, and Democrats refuse to answer do you seriously believe the Republicans won't take advantage of that to send votes and money (both of which they assert only citizens have rights to) to those areas with more declared citizens, on the basis that the other people are non-citizens who are not entitled to federal assistance (or representation in Congress).

[Fla Dem]

14. OK, get your point. Not a good idea.

[Fla Dem]

11. Seriously? Census Bureau part of Dept of Commerce headed by Wilbur Ross.

I have absolutely no faith in this current administration that the the information would be protected. If I was undocumented or not a citizen, there would be no way I would respond to the census. Therefore throwing the credibility of the whole system out the window.

[MichMan]

15. You sound exactly like the paranoid survivalists with their black helicopter conspiracy theories

Have you asked your dentist if the government is planting a microchip in your teeth to track your movements and control your mind?

[former9thward]

16. I was a Census supervisor in the 2010 Census.

We had plenty of people refusing to cooperate on the grounds they had "absolutely no faith in this current administration that the the information would be protected". So it happens every Census. The Census has statistical formulas to get around the problem. But don't answer if you are uncomfortable about it. All the Census really needs is the number in your household and they don't care if they are citizens or not for that number. The rest of the questions are used by local, state and federal agencies to plan for the future.