Census Citizenship Question

[Elixir]

President Dickweed has "lost" his fight to include a citizenship question intended to intimidate immigrants to keep them from responding to the 2020 census. At least that's the story line being pushed by left wing media. In fact, they are being played; the more they talk about it, them more Cheato gets to threaten the target audience. IOW, the effect of the battle against his stupid question might very well do more to intimidate non-citizens than would the inclusion of the question.
I wonder how stupid the producers of those CNN/MSNBC news shows really are. They complain about "the bully pulpit" constantly, even as they form the major part of its influence by talking Trump Trump Trump 24/7. I'd like to see a moratorium against showing that fucker's face, re-playing anything he says in his own voice, or even mentioning his name for a month or few...

If Cheato gets re-elected, it won't be on the strength of FOX pushing the Trumputin propaganda agenda, but rather on the kneejerk stupidity of the supposedly opposing media.

 

[Patooka]

This seems appropriate:

The one thing I will disagree with the cartoon is that I don't think it is Trump spinning the wheel. Even if Trump loses the 2020 election, I can see the next Republican President using the exact same arguments. It's not going to go away, it's too much of a free kick to garner support for the base.

 

[Derec]

I do not get the SCOTUS ruling. Where in the constitution does it say you can't have a citizenship question?

It is a good idea to know that information.

 

[PyramidHead]

The one thing I will disagree with the cartoon is that I don't think it is Trump spinning the wheel. Even if Trump loses the 2020 election, I can see the next Republican President using the exact same arguments. It's not going to go away, it's too much of a free kick to garner support for the base.

This is exactly true, and the only reason it's going away now is because Trump publicly bragged about it instead of quietly doing it behind the scenes; there are no political or procedural barriers to fascism in the US government, and this proves how sorely we need them.

 

[southernhybrid]

I do not get the SCOTUS ruling. Where in the constitution does it say you can't have a citizenship question?

It is a good idea to know that information.

SCOTUS didn't say that a citizenship question would never be permitted. They said that the problem was the reason why the citizen question was being added. Wilbur Ross wanted to add the question to aide in redistricting that would help Republicans. He tried to keep it secret but the information leaked out and became public knowledge. Do a little of your own DD. It's explained in detail in the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Derec]

SCOTUS didn't say that a citizenship question would never be permitted. They said that the problem was the reason why the citizen question was being added. Wilbur Ross wanted to add the question to aide in redistricting that would help Republicans. He tried to keep it secret but the information leaked out and became public knowledge. Do a little of your own DD. It's explained in detail in the SCOTUS decision.

Other than partisan considerations (more illegals in blue areas), why exactly should illegals be counted toward districting?

 

[Elixir]

I do not get the SCOTUS ruling. Where in the constitution does it say you can't have a citizenship question?

Who told you that SCOTUS said "you can't have a citizenship question"? Trump?
You and he are wrong. Well - YOU are probably just wrong, he is lying.
SCOTUS said you can absolutely have such a question as long as there is a reason. The Cheato admin couldn't provide one that wasn't transparently false and specious.



It is a good idea to know that information.

 

[James Brown]

14th Amendment:

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.

Residents, not citizens.

 

[Elixir]

SCOTUS didn't say that a citizenship question would never be permitted. They said that the problem was the reason why the citizen question was being added. Wilbur Ross wanted to add the question to aide in redistricting that would help Republicans. He tried to keep it secret but the information leaked out and became public knowledge. Do a little of your own DD. It's explained in detail in the SCOTUS decision.

Other than partisan considerations (more illegals in blue areas), why exactly should illegals be counted toward districting?

There's this thing called the Constitution... just some rag that Cheato doesn't respect.
But there are millions of deluded individuals who fancy it as the ultimate law of the land...
Cheato should simply declare non-citizens to be non-persons, thereby negating the constitutional directive that "all persons living..." in a district should be counted. After all, he doesn't consider people with black or brown skin to be human anyhow - unless they have billions of dollars in wealth, in which case they are almost human to him.

 

[AirPoh]

I do not get the SCOTUS ruling. Where in the constitution does it say you can't have a citizenship question?

It is a good idea to know that information.

Where in the constitution does it say you can have a citizenship question?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not get the SCOTUS ruling. Where in the constitution does it say you can't have a citizenship question?

It is a good idea to know that information.

The court didn't say there can't be such a question. The court said the process by which they decided the question should be there was fatally flawed.

It's like it's perfectly legal to hire a man, but it's illegal to hire a man specifically because he's male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

14th Amendment:

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.

Residents, not citizens.

The question wasn't intended to only count citizens. Rather, the purpose is to make illegals afraid to answer the census.

 

[Elixir]

14th Amendment:

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.

Residents, not citizens.

The question wasn't intended to only count citizens. Rather, the purpose is to make illegals afraid to answer the census.

Yes, and he is probably accomplishing that goal quite well, thanks to collusive (FOX) and compliant (everyone else) media.

 

[Harry Bosch]

SCOTUS didn't say that a citizenship question would never be permitted. They said that the problem was the reason why the citizen question was being added. Wilbur Ross wanted to add the question to aide in redistricting that would help Republicans. He tried to keep it secret but the information leaked out and became public knowledge. Do a little of your own DD. It's explained in detail in the SCOTUS decision.

Other than partisan considerations (more illegals in blue areas), why exactly should illegals be counted toward districting?

Because it leads to undercounting of "legals". There are many families who have undocumented family members who wish to protect them from the storm troopers.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I do not get the SCOTUS ruling. Where in the constitution does it say you can't have a citizenship question?

It is a good idea to know that information.

Where in the constitution does it say you can have a citizenship question?

That has nothing to do with this case.

From: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...t-get-their-bogus-census-question-ncna1023411

Congress delegated its responsibility to conduct the census to what is now the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department, being a federal agency, has broad authority to carry out its duties. This means that commerce secretaries can largely decide how they want to accomplish their responsibility of conducting the census.

But here is the key legal issue in the case — just because federal agencies have broad authority, that does not mean they have unchecked authority. This is where the Federal Administrative Procedures Act (FAPA) comes in. FAPA provides that federal agencies cannot act in a way that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

And this is where the Trump administration ran into a significant roadblock at the Supreme Court today. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross claimed that members of the Justice Department told him citizenship information would be helpful for enforcing the federal Voting Rights Act and that was his sole reason for wanting to ask the citizenship question. This is, to use a legal term, bogus. Evidence indicates Ross wanted to include the question long before we heard a peep from the Justice Department, and that in fact that rationale was fabricated.

On Thursday, the court didn’t go so far as to call Ross a liar, but they recognized that there were significant problems with his alleged justification. Indeed, a majority of the Supreme Court understood that FAPA tasks the court with real oversight authority. Roberts wrote, “[a]ccepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.”

 

[Elixir]

SCOTUS didn't say that a citizenship question would never be permitted. They said that the problem was the reason why the citizen question was being added. Wilbur Ross wanted to add the question to aide in redistricting that would help Republicans. He tried to keep it secret but the information leaked out and became public knowledge. Do a little of your own DD. It's explained in detail in the SCOTUS decision.

Other than partisan considerations (more illegals in blue areas), why exactly should illegals be counted toward districting?

Because it leads to undercounting of "legals".

No, that is not why they should be counted. They should be counted if they are residents. That's the point of the census.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Because it leads to undercounting of "legals".

No, that is not why they should be counted. They should be counted if they are residents. That's the point of the census.

?? Perhaps you misunderstood my statement. There are many thousands of documented American families who have some undocumented family members living with them. They are far more likely to protect their undocumented family members helping them to support the family than fulfilling their constitutional requirement of filling out the census!

 

[Elixir]

Because it leads to undercounting of "legals".

No, that is not why they should be counted. They should be counted if they are residents. That's the point of the census.

?? Perhaps you misunderstood my statement. There are many thousands of documented American families who have some undocumented family members living with them. They are far more likely to protect their undocumented family members helping them to support the family than fulfilling their constitutional requirement of filling out the census!

Yeah that's definitely going to happen, but it's not why everyone should be counted. Everyone should be counted because that is the census mandate, period. We don't have to look at the secondary and tertiary repercussions - compelling as they may be - to justify counting everyone.

 

[fast]

I once introduced the hypotherical that I hate the police so much that I would not call them even if I saw a potential rapist enter a neighbors home through a window where a young girl was alone—unless it was raining. If it were raining, I argued, then I would call the police, for they tend to drive fast and driving fast increases the risk of an injurious automobile accident.

I was told that it doesn’t matter why I do what’s right so long as I do what’s right. In that case, my reasoning might be impure, but the action nonetheless would be the right thing to do.

So, if a legal immigrant has the moral obligation to protect a resident illegal alien, then it could be argued that doing what is morally right trumps doing what is otherwise compulsory by law.

However, it has also been explained to me that right and wrong is not objective and that we each have our very own subjective notions of right and wrong. We ought not be bound to the differing whimsical shades of moral gray of others but instead only be held accountable to the rule of law that manifests in conjunction to the collective expression of our individual notions.

If that is the case, I have a greater duty to the rule of law as it better reflects our collective sense of right and wrong. That being said, we should strive to abide by the rule of law and seek to change the laws we don’t personally agree with.

I guess I might have made an argument or two in there, but I’m not sharing it for the purpose of espousing it; I’m just looking to explore the divide of right and wrong between legal duty and moral duty.

 

[Elixir]

I guess I might have made an argument or two in there, but I’m not sharing it for the purpose of espousing it; I’m just looking to explore the divide of right and wrong between legal duty and moral duty.

Why bother? We have an executive who doesn't respect either his legal duty or his moral duty, setting the example for the country.
Get rid of that flaming asshole, and maybe we can talk.