Am I missing something, why would asking about citizenship on the census not make sense? Guess I never knew what questions where asked but would have thought citizenship would have been one of the 1st

In order to get an accurate representation of the people living in the US, you want as many people as possible to respond. Non-citizens/aliens/illegals likely won’t respond if they’re asked specifically if they are citizens. This creates holes in the government’s demographic and outreach data.

I wonder how many of you actually understand the what these “illegal aliens” contribute to society. Again, I am a registered republican and voted for Trump. Most of my family members migrated to this country in the late 1880s illegally. These “illegal aliens” now have over 10 small business, pay their taxes, own multiples houses, own multiple cars, and employ American Citizens. This is the case for many immigrant families that I know. They don’t have socials but instead use a tax ID to file their taxes and invest in property. These “illegal aliens” contribute to society more than most lower class individuals who rely on government benefits do. I do believe that we should deport all individuals with a criminal background. Don’t let your feelings or Fox’s News opinion prevent you from seeing reality.

^ reason why we as society can’t have a meaningful/honest convo. I’m a republican by the way and would never refer to someone as “illegal aliens"

“Dehumanisation is viewed as a central component to intergroup violence because it is frequently the most important precursor to moral exclusion, the process by which stigmatized groups are placed outside the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply.”

Source: http://web.stanford.edu/~eberhard/downloads/2008-NotYetHuman.pdf

Interesting - I too am for a meaningful discussion but they are here illegally and they are non residents so the phrase is truthful - we should have a system that rewards good behavior but you have stop the drugs and the violence and the unregulated flow - if it were much harder to get drugs into the US then there would be much less money and violence in the US and Mexico - it’s funny a wall and a well regulated border could actually make the lives less of Mexicans better - many people would be much more accepting of granting amnesty if we make it harder for more people than they get in -

First understand, that content needed on the cable entertainment news programs isn’t going to write itself, so they need to make a bunch of “hay” out of something to fill the time and make it entertaining. This goes for ALL of them. Russia, hookers, this.

On the CA lawsuit, this question was last asked on the 2000 long form so it’s clearly not unconstitutional, illegal, or some old question reinvented. In 2010 only the short form was used. Is just politics of being against for the sake being against. Both side are hypocritical and guilty.

The Country (any Country) should know who is here legally or otherwise. There is nothing wrong with capturing that at all.

Lastly, I don’t think any House representation determination should have foreign citizens living here added to the allocation. Simply allocate Representatives based on citizen population without all the created nonsense. However it falls out, it falls out. No political bitching, no whining.

That’s not the purpose of the census

And money too. It’s not getting less or more. It’s getting what you should get. Less lawyers, more accountants

I think they should take the question off or just have a provision that it can't be used for immigration enforcement. I'm for immigration enforcement but it muddies the effectiveness of the census if people are afraid to fill it out. That said I'm totally with SF1 that house representation should be based on citizen population. Anything otherwise gives overrepresentation to certain citizens.

Might make the unregistered Democrats (i mean illegal aliens nervous)

But let people get in is the purpose. Haven’t you heard of “Demographic is the destine."?

It is not just house redistributing, it is about federal money. Housing, education, Medicaid, transportation etc. basically, stealing money from legal residents.

SF1: Why should a state get more money just because they have more illegals?

Only in bizzarro world where the left cares more about illegals than citizens is this controversial.

Since I’m slow and need it chunked down to understand. I view it thusly. Assuming 1M people = 1 Congressman, and funding would follow that % representation of the total.

State A has a population of 2M made up of 100% normal US citizens. They get 2 representatives. State B is also made up of 2M people, but is comprised of 1M US citizens and 1M other (whatever their classification is). To me State B gets 1 representative. The 1M of others get their representation in their home country

I just can’t get to a place where A and B both have the same representation.

Big takeaway here is that everyone is selfish and pushing for what benefits their side most. Leftists are adhering to original intent of constitution all of a sudden because it gets them more seats and power (let’s be honest that’s what it’s about). Right leaning folks are apt to include to tee up as a point about illegals or potentially dissuade them from answering so that those areas get fewer representatives. Some principal to both sides but let’s be real - it’s mostly about who gets power, dollars, and representation.

were* (for the haters)

ICE Raids....

Not sure if directed at me, but didn’t mean any harm. Undocumented? Not sure what word you want to hear.

It doesn’t make sense for states like CA that could lose members in the House if asking about citizenship scares away illegals from being counted.