Should the 2010 census should have questions about citizenship and immigration status?

[pampango]

Sen. Vitters (R-La) has introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill that would require questions in the census regarding citizenship and immigration status. The amendment would also prevent states from counting illegal aliens for the purposes of determining population levels and other data associated with the census. In a demonstration of what the amendment is really about, groups on all sides of the immigration debate are urging their constituencies to press senators on the measure.

"Vitter has been accused by Latino congressmen and pro-immigration advocates of trying to politicize the census and of not-so-subtly playing to the conservative base on the highly controversial issue of immigration. Whether that was his goal or not, it has clearly been achieved."

"“Why is the open borders lobby so afraid of seeing this issue come to a vote? Why are they attempting to sweep this issue under the rug?” said the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform in a web posting where it asked supporters to press for a vote on the amendment."

"“If passed, the amendment will inject fear into an action required by the U.S. Constitution every ten years. The census provides a population count needed to determine the allocation of federal funds (for everything from schools and hospitals, to highways and public transportation) as well as political representation. Vitter’s amendment hurts already financially strapped local governments by leaving millions uncounted.”

http://feetin2worlds.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/fight-not-over-on-census-amendment-that-would-require-question-on-citizenship/

NDN, the SEIU union, Hispanic organizations and others have joined to launch a website opposing the amendment, called Don’t Wreck the Census.
--------------------------
One argument for the questions: It's important to know the size of the undocumented worker problem and in what areas of the country it is concentrated. The questions would help public policy.

One argument against them: Questions about citizenship and legal status may scare many people away from participating in the census thus skewing its results which doesn't make for good public policy.

[vadawg]

1. id say that as the elected representatives are portioned according to the census data

then the census has to know how many citizens and therefore eligible to vote are in each area, forget about all the other arguments as i feel proper representation is the most important part of the info gathering...

[brendan120678]

3. Absolutely not...

All that matters, Constitutionally, are number of people. You can even go for their ages as well, I suppose.

All that "extra" data such as race, national origin, and whatnot is just fluff created in order to give the statisticians at the Census Bureau a job. ;-)

[vadawg]

4. not sure if you agree with me or not, im saying that if your a citizen you get counted

so that congressional districts etc can be apportioned properly. If your not a citizen then you cant vote... but i agree with all the other crap thats involved, does anyone actually fill it all in correctly or do you normally just fluff it...

[brendan120678]

6. Sorry, I wasn't replying directly to you...

My "Absolutely Not" was an answer to the OP question, not your position.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Kids can't vote so let's leave them out of census counts too.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[vadawg]

18. nope count them but note when they become of age to vote or something

whats the point of using these numbers to apportion districts if you include people who are here illegally, ive never understood this thinking...

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Oh, so you are in favor of counting people who can't vote after all.

:eyes:

The reason to count illegal immigrants is that ignoring the existence when assessing the distribution of population is like wearing blinders. They're here, they're part of the population whether they have legal status or not.

[vadawg]

20. yup they are here but as they cant vote, shouldnt the representatives

be apportioned according to their constituants or are you one of the who cares about proper representation... think about it if you count say a million illegals in area A then the citizens in area B will be underrepresented in the house etc...

[Gormy Cuss]

21. Think about it -- you're advocating that an MOC have a million invisible people in her/his district.

BTW, the current apportionment is around one MOC for every 700K people so your scenario would never happen if "area" bears some relationship to congressional district.

[vadawg]

22. well are the representatives meant to represent the voters of their district

not people here ilegally, not sure how its meant to work, but im pretty sure it was the voters they were meant to work for..

[Gormy Cuss]

25. Again, if it's a count of eligible voters then children should be excluded.

They are not. They have been enumerated since the first decennial census. So were women, who had no Federal voting rights until the last century. For that matter, even slaves were counted although with a weight of only 3/5s of a free person. The slaves did not have the right to vote, yet they were counted to keep more Congressional seats in the slave holding states because the other states had larger populations of white free men. I mention that to demonstrate another way that Congressional apportionment has never been strictly about voters, or even citizens.

[atreides1]

7. How do you prove it?

Even if the question was there, do you really think that they will answer truthfully, if they are here illegally?

I guess you could demand proof of citizenship, maybe between now and 2010 the states could issue identity papers to all who can show proof that they were either born here or are in the country legally.

My question to you, is how can it be done?

[vadawg]

8. no idea but surely if districts are to be done correctly then it has to be done somehow

unless people dont care if they are getting the correct representation (by number).

[EFerrari]

2. No way. If people are afraid they will get into trouble, they will lie

and your city/county/state will be then be shorted in funding allocations. This is a really stupid idea put out to make the nut wing base froth at the mouth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Here's an argument against it.

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<1> ”

[Mopar151]

9. Thank you for posting the fifth ammendment.

It certainly applies here

[snagglepuss]

10. But a census has nothing to do with the courts. It is not a criminal case so why

would it apply?

[brendan120678]

12. Because a response on a Census form...

stating that you are an undocumented resident could be used against you, probably.

[snagglepuss]

13. Then if that was the case then I think question should be omitted but that would be

a shame because that information is important.

edit spelling

[Johonny]

14. well the best information I can find says this

The United States Census Bureau claims that your privacy will be protected in conducting the U.S. Census. How is the privacy of the respondents protected? According to the Census Bureau, “the numbers we publish are combined with thousands of answers from people in your neighborhood and across the country. No one, except sworn Census Bureau employees, can see your questionnaire or link your name with your responses. In fact, the law provides severe penalties for any census employee that makes your answers known. By law (Title 13 USCS) the Census Bureau cannot share the individual answers it receives with others, including welfare agencies, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Internal Revenue Service, courts or police. The military personnel who help with the census on-base are sworn to protect the confidentiality of your answers. Anyone who breaks this law can receive up to 5 years in prison and $5,000 in fines. Millions of questionnaires were processed during the 1990s without any breach of trust.

[EFerrari]

16. That's all well and good but does it really apply to ICE?

They seem to be able to break any law they want to with impunity. People in their custody turn up tortured and even dead.

[damntexdem]

15. No. In the abstract, they might produce useful data. In practice, they would be a disaster.

Many more would dodge answering the Census.

[pampango]

17. Immigration (and Democratic) activists would say that has happened in the past.

Getting people who are leery of government officials to cooperate with a government-run census has been difficult and has resulted in under counts that have cost some states and localities the representation that they deserve and the federal funding that they need based on their population.

Even if there was an ironclad wall between the Census and federal and law enforcement agencies, nervous immigrants would be hard to convince of this and might, as they have in the past, just avoid the census all together. Since the census is supposed to count all people, not just some of them, that wouldn't help them get an accurate count.

[Swamp Rat]

23. NO!! ..... Let Lou Dobbs do his own head count.

[Tesha]

24. Vitter wants it because it will scare off even *LEGAL* aliens and immigrants and...

...guess what? They tend to be the Democratic constituencies.

Don't fall for this Republican trick!

Tesha

[KamaAina]

26. Oh goody. Vitter is now using the Constitution as a diaper.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

AMENDMENT XIV...

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Is Diaper Dave seriously claiming that undocumented immigrants are equivalent to "Indians not taxed"?

Or maybe we could do it the old-fashioned way and count undocumented immigrants as three-fifths of a person. :sarcasm: