What a ridiculous thing to bring up since slaves were only counted to benefit the slave owners. We were talking in reference to the Electoral College & Congressional Seats. And quite honestly, how your local community chooses to hire Police/Fire isn't really a national issue. Does it really say that in regard to representation? Obviously a different world back then, but I'd prefer that changed to legal residents. I didn't think of mixed houses as legal children, illegal parents, but I certainly see that as a valid issue.
Texas will benefit from the counting of illegal immigrants, just as it had benefited from the 3/5ths rule.
Like it or not, Census is being used in far more places than just state representatives, and it will continue to be used. I am not saying counting slaves were good for the slaves, just that we have counted everyone since the founding of this nation, that is the goal of the census.
So did black people and pretty much every country in the history of the planet, what does that have to do with the census?
Just trying to get a cogent argument out of you. So what if we did have this question on the census a half-century ago? What bearing does that have on the advisability of having it in 2020?
I find it quite ridiculous that people think it is a big deal that, while in the process of counting people in the country, a country would ask people if they are here legally or not so they can count how many. I understand that people who are breaking the law don't trust the people who make the laws but what can ya do?
I thought we were through this a couple of days ago. That is the long form questionnaire that was sent to only a fraction of households. The Bureau now wants to use the question for all households. It was also during an era when deportations prioritized criminals and left the kids recovering in post-op in peace.
Having a question that result in an inaccurate (depressed) count of residents, which is used to determine the # of congressional representation, funding, and even data for business planning.... At minimum, it is not adhering to a Constitutional requirement and at worst, some State will be well under-represented and under-funded. p.s. I see this as another cheating attempt by this Admin. Bunch of unethical, immoral, lying, cheaters... cheers
Political Evangelicals also applaud the Rapture/End Times coming within their lifetime and will do anything to speed it up (prolonging tensions w/ Israel and their neighbors, global warming, enabling selfish hedonistic policies by their annointed leaders, etc...). Loudest are the souls who need the most saving.
The slippery slope argument is weak - very weak. No one has presented evidence to show that the census would undercount with such a question. It has appeared on previous censuses and on non-decennial censuses. Mountains out of mole hills.
The 3/5 compromise didn't exist because we wanted to count everyone. It existed because slaveowners wanted additional power. The intent is for Representatives
Findings across languages, regions of the country, from both pretesting respondents and field staff point to an unprecedented ground swell in confidentiality and data sharing concerns, particularly among immigrants or those who live with immigrants https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Meyers-NAC-Confidentiality-Presentation.pdf There were already fear of this admin using census data against them. Adding this question reinforces their concern and will very likely depress participation. Why would risk that? Yea, we aren’t dumb.
I would definitely agree with the "flawed" part... everything trump tries is flawed... Census advisers say decision to add citizenship question based on ‘flawed logic’ http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...p-question-based-on?__twitter_impression=true
I wouldn't want it sent to 1/6th of the group in 2020 either. The object of including the question so far as I can tell is to depress the response rate among immigrant families in order to suppress their political voice. I haven't managed to find a reasoned argument for why the question needs to be on there -- defenders just pivot to say it was there before, as if that was a good enough reason.
