Apr 1, 2018 1:32AM PDT

With ICE on the prowl what non-citizen is going to indicate that on the form and mail it in?

Is this a form of gerrymandering?

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Census
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Census
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Our Census is taken every ten years
Apr 1, 2018 3:01AM PDT

and that question has been on the form since day one until BO had it removed in 2010. It's being put back in. No one has ever questioned its being there before......why now?

Federal funding has always and continues to be determined by how many citizens live in each district....Congressional seats are also determined by how many citizens are in each district and how many seats are represented in each State based on that number. As people move in and out of different districts, those number increase or decrease accordingly and some districts are merged with others based on population of citizens. (The special election in PA that just happened, as a result, is only temporary because that district is going to be split between two others....and both of those candidates will have to run again in November in two different districts, which is why, in my opinion, that special election should have never been held.)

The Census has nothing to do with illegals, other than to use them as a campaign issue....if they don't answer, they aren't relevant to the outcome anyhow. There are many liberals actually suing to have them be counted (claiming not counting them is unconstitutional) and using 'racist' as part of their argument; however, there are other questions on that form that they aren't even bringing up.....(race, religion, gender, etc). Their arguments are nothing more than a political ploy. (Such as Maxine Waters' district having nearly ALL of her population being illegals.....there aren't enough LEGAL CITIZENS to hold onto the district at this point which means hers would be dissolved and she would disappear unless she moved and ran in another district, leaving one less Senator in Congress).

- Collapse -
For all things that affect the determination
Apr 1, 2018 3:18AM PDT

of the president and federal government in general, US citizenship is and, IMO, should be required. The issue here seems to be on whose shoulders is the burden of proof. I can see nothing wrong with asking the simple question regarding citizenship and using that information, or lack of it, in this constitutional process. States can do as they wish for the more local issues but, at the highest levels, accuracy is imperative.

- Collapse -
So for one time the question was
Apr 1, 2018 10:26AM PDT

replaced with "Hispanic" instead of 'Place of Birth' or 'naturalization' .... in ALL instances, the intent was to determine CITIZENSHIP to the USA for Congressional Seats allocation AND Federal Funding.

Except for 2010 when BO took ALL of that you wonder why that might be? Trump is only reinstating it....he isn't making up something new that can be disputed legally and won by opposition....especially when you consider that the 'race', 'gender', and 'religion' are also asked and yet only the citizenship question is being charged as 'racist' by the left. Why not challenge ALL of them while they're at it? Because driver's licenses are being handed out like candy in CA to illegals and it's all they need to vote? And because CA, with all those illegals getting 'free' attorneys to fight deportation, needs those federal funds to pay for them?

Come on, Bob....admit it.

- Collapse -
BO took it out
Apr 1, 2018 11:43AM PDT

Because it fit his agenda.

Is the child putting it back because it fits his agenda?

Does the child have an agenda?

If he does his staff learns about it when he opens his mouth in public or puts his thumbs on twitter.

- Collapse -
It was the Census Bureau
Apr 1, 2018 11:58AM PDT

that made the announcement, not Trump.....are you seriously saying that non-citizens and illegals should be able to dictate policy?

- Collapse -
I say "No"
Apr 1, 2018 3:26AM PDT

By definition, "gerrymandering" is a deliberate attempt to favor one party over the other. Excluding non-citizens should be a given regardless of which party might court them. It might be gerrymandering if a question such as;

"Are you a descendant of the Ulster Scots?" but not citizenship itself.

- Collapse -
If a dem state
Apr 1, 2018 4:38AM PDT

Has a high number of illegals and those people don't respond to the census then there is a good possibility that state will lose a dem seat in congress.

Since the repubs are in power it just make me wonder if something is going on.

Sort of like if you can't get people to vote for you stop them from voting.

- Collapse -
Makes you wonder why BO
Apr 1, 2018 8:07AM PDT

had it taken out during his term.........Trump only reinstated something that had been there for nearly 100 years already without question by either party. Your last statement is a typical Dem/liberal pushback.....perhaps because they NEED those illegals to vote for them? In CA you only need a driver's license as proof to vote, and they hand out driver's licenses to illegals like candy. Think they might have a motive behind that madness?

- Collapse -
Apr 1, 2018 10:32AM PDT

Certainly there is a motive.....on both sides of the aisle.

One side wants the votes to count the other side does not.

It's called the game of on.

Personally I don't think non citizens should be allowed to vote on a federal level.

- Collapse -
They shouldn't be allowed to vote on ANY level
Apr 1, 2018 12:02PM PDT

considering that Local communities and the State also have policies and programs in place that shouldn't include them at taxpayer expense, including the school systems....and I'm talking about illegals mainly, as there are some who are non-citizens but here legally as far as benefits go. NONE of any of these people should be able to vote in any election though. If they want that right, they need to become citizens first and be able to prove they have. A driver's license doesn't cut it.

- Collapse -
Apr 1, 2018 12:37PM PDT

States can make their own rules.

If my state has a rule I'm unhappy with I tell my rep.

If your state has a rule I'm unhappy with I keep my mouth shut.

- Collapse -
(NT) Yeah, right......
Apr 1, 2018 1:53PM PDT
- Collapse -
Yeah wrong
Apr 1, 2018 2:51PM PDT

Got any proof of what you imply?

- Collapse -
Well....if someone isn't here legally
Apr 1, 2018 9:56AM PDT

should they be voting? As well, should the controlling party in any state be permitted to enact law or policy that favors or pads their own numbers. I'd say "No" to both. You appear to only have concern if the favor would go to a certain party and the other party just might lose a seat. I'd like to think that who is sitting in the seat is more important than the party to which they belong and that voters should be looking at that rather than the "Rs" and "Ds" after they names.

- Collapse -
I don't give a hoot
Apr 1, 2018 11:08AM PDT

About R or D.

It just made me wonder why the question was being added back now.

Is there politics involved here.

The party in power sees a way to keep that power.

The party in power sees a way to punish a state that votes for the other party.

I think only a citizen should be allowed to vote at the federal level.

- Collapse -
(NT) You don't give a hoot.....yeah, right.....
Apr 1, 2018 12:02PM PDT
- Collapse -
Apr 1, 2018 1:07PM PDT

When I go to vote I have my shopping list in hand.

It's based on what the candidates have said or done in the past.

Nothing on the list shows anything about R or D.

I vote both sides of the ticket.

I'm in and out of the poll in just a few mins.

You did your normal thing and jumped to a conclusion and as usual your wrong.

- Collapse -
re: Census
Apr 2, 2018 5:45AM PDT

There was a discussion along these lines here 12 years ago.

Unfortunately, in the case that I mentioned in that thread (in a subsequent post in 2015) -- Evenwel v. Abbott -- the Supreme Court punted by saying that States can use total population, but not saying anything one way or the other about whether or not (other) States can use (only) the number of eligible voters. i.e. excluding felons and non-citizens. Had they issued a ruling on the second part, the citizenship question on the census would either be moot or mandatory.

- Collapse -
good point
Apr 2, 2018 1:39PM PDT

Maybe they'll hark back historically and give them a 3/5's of a human's value?

CNET Forums

Forum Info