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.

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 -

That is why they are suing the federal government.

They shouldn’t be afraid to fill out if here legally...

You are wrong. The left does not care about illegals. They care about power. Illegal immigration is the path to power.

K2, that is already given. The census never shared data with ICE.

To recap: the argument as to why the question shouldn’t be on the census is because some states are concerned “non-citizens” (<you like that) may be afraid to complete/submit the form thus states may not get an accurate representation of total population, thus impacting federal spending in that area (ie smaller population=less money). This could also impact house representation.

So essentially we want to indirectly benefit non citizens by providing additional tax dollars and/or over fund certain areas with few citizens rather than spend that money on tax paying citizens in other areas

Also, some concern over ICE/border patrol using this info against “non-citizens"

I wonder what was the immigration laws in 1880s. On the other hand, I am sure SSN was not invented in 1880.

BTW, if you have read this. The citizenship question was asked in the 1950s. Nobody questioned its constitutionality.

The Constitution mandates the census count everyone physically present in the United States, not just citizens or those non-citizens who are legally present. Lots of government resources must be spent on everyone equally regardless of immigration or citizenship status. Hospitals treat all emergencies. Street lights illuminate the street even for undocumented immigrants. And cars wear down the roads no matter who is at the wheel.

Furthermore, many undocumented immigrants have US citizen children. Are you suggesting you hate undocumented immigrants so much that you’d prefer we fail to count citizens?

Finally, I’ll just note that being present in the United States without a proper visa is not even a crime. (Crossing a boarder outside of an official checkpoint is, even if you’re a citizen, but almost no one is actually tried and convicted of this.) So there seems to be quite a lot of support for really radical actions to deal with a civil violation

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/2-arrested-uscanada-border-fined-10k-illegally-entering-us

Since you just posted the link, it’s not clear if you meant that to be a rebuttal to any of my claims, but it supports them. The two individuals discussed were assessed with civil penalties, not charged with crimes.

So agree in principle that should count everyone. Guess concern is, should a state get an extra congressional seat based on people here illegally? What if you had an entire state filled with illegals and 1000 citizens - do they get extra representation based on the illegal population?

BCG1, that’s what the constitution requires. Should we also exclude people who can’t vote (legal immigrants, too young, felons, mentally incompetent)? What about people who don’t vote?

@OW1- it’s not voting eligibility, it’s citizens. Just count the citizens. Vacationers overstaying their visa and sneak-ins should be excluded

Ok, what about legal immigrants? Anyway, your proposals require a Constitutional amendment. Right now, the census is supposed to count everyone physically present. This is a conversation about how to best execute the census under current law. The reason not to ask about citizenship or immigration status is to avoid scaring people away from participating, which by the way they’re legally required to do

This question was in every census since 1900, except for 2010 when obama was president . There was never a controversy.

Please enlighten us where / who said not to count illegal immigrants?

This is interesting. So if all the folks illegally here in Texas get deported, would Texas (and republicans) get congressional and electoral college benefits for the next 10 years? Know it’s a bit of a rabbit hole / extreme scenario but def feels a bit off

KPMG1 - The NPR article is more detailed. It’s not been on the short form sent to everyone since 1950 — the short form is used for Congressional apportionment. It’s been on the long form and/or American Community Survey in many other periods since — these surveys ask all kinds of questions and are only sent to a sample of households. Their results are used for Congressional funding, plus a number of private uses as well of course

BCG1 - That’s correct, but it’s true of all population shifts. You could construct an extreme scenario where lots of people leave a state (e.g. due to a Katrina-like natural disaster) but this only impacts apportionment once the decennial census is completed. Again, this is a Constitutional requirement.

The question was in either/or the long and short forms or both since the 1970 according to the NPR article. It was in the short form in 2000 again according to the NPR articles. It just was not in 2010 census.

Again in the same article, it states the census is by law prevented from sharing the data with law enforcement agencies including FBI. So, what to fear about?