One would have to be pretty willfully obtuse at this point not to consider malice as an active motivation in basically all this administration's actions.
Its it funny because you don't understand the issue or is it funny because people are laughing at you because you don't understand the issue?
Republicans always deny malice with these kinds of things and then they get caught. Example with voter ID lawsSounds like you are inferring malice where there is no proof of said intention. Are you paranoid?
Fixed that for ya.Since you have to be 21 to answer, "Have you ever dated anyone under the age of 16 (under 14 in Alabama or in any state where having a pet raccoon is considered normal behavior)"? We ought to be able to weed out a lot of Rs. Clearly the # of representatives in Alabama would go down.
The question was included in the long form sent to over 16% of the households in each of the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census.It wasn’t a sentence out of context, it was literally the conclusion of the article.
As for your statement it is ironic that you mention context as when you stated it was not a new question you omitted the context that it was in fact a new question for the vast majority of Americans. Your own link thought it was so important that they made it the concluding paragraph. Now THAT’S some missing context, haha.
If that is the case, why was this not an issue during the Obama administration and for the last 21 years, when the ACS asked the same question every year. The laws of the US have not changed markedly in that time period.The whole point is that the administration wants to use fear to suppress responses, which will probably be effective. Also while identities may be confidential the tract data won't be so giving this government more information to target tracts rich in illegal immigrants isn't exactly going to be a motivator for responding.
One would have to be pretty willfully obtuse at this point not to consider malice as an active motivation in basically all this administration's actions.
Please read the entirety of the links I have posted. The question has been asked in every Census since 1970 (with the exception of the 2010) on the long form sent to a different 16% of households in each Census.It's not like everybody knows or believes that. It's also related to the idea of sanctuary cities where the police disassociate themselves from La Migra to better do their jobs.
If the question hasn't been seen as necessary since 1950 I don't understand why it's necessary today. What we need more than anything else is just an honest count. It behooves us to avoid methodologies that may well be self defeating in that regard.
The question was included in the long form sent to over 16% of the households in each of the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census.
Additionally it was included in the ACS sent to over 16% of the households for the last 21 consecutive years.
The Commerce dept strives to make sure they reach a different 16% households with each Census and Survey so as to not duplicate data.
So you are free to twist the facts any way you please, but I stand by my statement that it is not a new question - Asking about citizenship is not a new question, and has been on the Census before, notably without objections.
If that is the case, why was this not an issue during the Obama administration and for the last 21 years, when the ACS asked the same question every year. The laws of the US have not changed markedly in that time period.
The answer to this should be obvious, the stakes are way different. If certain groups of people don’t respond to the ACS you get skewed data for government agencies and nonprofits to act on. This is unfortunate but it’s not that huge a deal. If you have the same happen with the census you get malapportioned political power, which can have huge effects.
It should be no surprise to anyone that people take representation in Congress more seriously than the data nonprofits use.
The answer to this should be obvious, the stakes are way different. If certain groups of people don’t respond to the ACS you get skewed data for government agencies and nonprofits to act on. This is unfortunate but it’s not that huge a deal. If you have the same happen with the census you get malapportioned political power, which can have huge effects.
It should be no surprise to anyone that people take representation in Congress more seriously than the data nonprofits use.
The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.
After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.
The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
Please read the entirety of the links I have posted. The question has been asked in every Census since 1970 (with the exception of the 2010) on the long form sent to a different 16% of households in each Census.
It has also been asked in the ACS for the last 21 consecutive years.
It is a only a question.
No one is forced to answer it!
Edit - as to confidentiality - It is clearly spelled out on Every Census and ACS survey as required by law, so if you get the survey, you get the Notice of Title 13 Confidentiality.
What's the upside to asking people their race? What tribe they belong to? How about their gender? Shit, we've been told that gender is fluid and can change at the snap of a finger yet an individual has to pick one for the census?Peachy. So what's the upside? What is gained in asking the question at all?
Perhaps one thing that is being forgotten or ignored, is that the identity of those responding to both ACS and Census surveys is held confidential under federal law and cannot be revealed to even the FBI, ICE or any other government agencies.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/census-undocumented-immigrants.htmlDuring World War I, the Census Bureau shared with the military the names of men who were of draft age. During World War II, the bureau provided the Secret Service with the names and addresses of some Japanese-Americans in the Washington, D.C., area as part of an investigation. And in 2000, the bureau acknowledged and apologized for sharing data on Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast to help the military relocate them to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
No one has said it can change at the snap of a finger. Nice mound of straw you've built yourself there...we've been told that gender is fluid and can change at the snap of a finger
Its not legal to enact policies for the purposes of disenfranchising people. The constitution mandates everyone be counted.
Then again like most Republican policies going back to the 50s seems in their wheelhouse.
What's the upside to asking people their race? What tribe they belong to? How about their gender? Shit, we've been told that gender is fluid and can change at the snap of a finger yet an individual has to pick one for the census?
Start lobbying for the above criteria to be eliminated and then we'll know you're serious.
Why won't everyone that is to be counted get counted? Hasn't the citizenship question been asked multiple times before?
No, it hasn’t been asked since 1950.
The reason why everyone won’t get counted is that undocumented immigrants will be less likely to answer. Since the point of the census is to count as many people as possible this is dumb.
The thing is that conservatives are perfectly fine with this outcome as they don’t really give a shit about if the census is good anyway. To them a bad census that helps conservatives is better than a good census that does not.
For those of you constantly bitching about following the constitution, it says census will count people living in the country not just citizens.
This is one of the dumbest of boomerang’s posts and that’s a title with a LOT of competition.
He has a valid argument , yiu just don't like it because of how it bitch slaps your opposition to the citizenship question.
Try again because you are not totally accurate with the 1950 date.
What's the upside to asking people their race? What tribe they belong to? How about their gender? Shit, we've been told that gender is fluid and can change at the snap of a finger yet an individual has to pick one for the census?
Start lobbying for the above criteria to be eliminated and then we'll know you're serious.