The Census and the Question of Citizenship

What law do you think sanctuary cities are violating?

Note: It is perfectly legal for states to refuse to enforce federal law. They can't declare federal law unConstitutional, nor forbid its enforcement by the federal government... but they can perfectly legally do nothing at all to help.

See:

Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) -

The Supreme Court said (in reference to forcing Northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act) - "The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution."


New York v. United States (1992) - regarding Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

The SC said - "and the history of the Constitutional Convention, demonstrates that Congress may not commandeer the States' legislative processes by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program"


Printz v. United States (1997) - regarding a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program.

SC - "We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

...and finally:

Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) - where the SC ruled Congress cannot force the states to act against their will by withholding funds in a coercive manner.

The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ”... For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.”

 

I support keeping the EC - but doing away with the silly limiting of number of members of the House of Representatives which has since the Apportionment Act of 1911/Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 shifted power from larger to smaller states at a much greater degree than that intended in the original Constitution.

The Senate was supposed to be equal representation (and thus provide more power per individual vote to smaller states) while the House was supposed to provide equal power to individual votes per population - but the limiting of the House to 435 along with the guarantee of having at least 1 house member has made the house ALSO over represent small states.

The number of reps should be untethered and tied to the population of the smallest state. Wyoming has ~580K people - so states should get one rep in the house per 580K people.

 

There is nothing illegal about asking categorical questions about the people you are counting - but some questions are antithetical to the purpose of the census, which is to count ALL inhabitants.

If you know a question is going to make your count of all inhabitants less accurate, then it should not be included in the census. Other surveys other than the decennial census instituted for the purpose of counting all inhabitants for the purpose of representation can be used to ask those questions should it be deemed necessary.

 

Gary, I said:

You replied:

I took that mean that somehow thought that by having the electoral college apportion their votes to match the popular vote would somehow change us from a representative republic to a direct democracy.

Yes we are a republic, and changing how the electoral college assigns it votes will not change that. You can find more scholarly writing on what is a republic but this one should do for here:

"A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2][3]

In American English, the definition of a republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy. [8]" # 1

We are also a democracy. You can be more than one thing at a time. (i.e. you can be a dog and also a mutt at the same time).

Your contention that changing how the electoral college assigns it votes would have about the same effect on the countries status as a republic as changing the vote from the first Tuesday after the first Monday to the final Friday.

If you want to continue this discussion, I would suggest you start a new thread as this one is about census questions.

# 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

 

There is only 10 questions on the short form. You can replace question 8 on Hispanic ethnicity with the citizen, documented or undocumented question.

It will give a much clearer description of the people that inhabit the US.

 

No - it will give a little more detail on people who respond to the survey, while making the actual count of inhabitants (the purpose of the census) LESS accurate due to lower response rates.

 

Why would you count a person who may be shortly deported ?

 

Because that is the way the Founding Fathers wrote the law.

Also you said "may", so they may still be here.

 

This just smells like another invented problem to keep the 2 sides arguing.
Illegals are not going to answer census questions, does not matter what question you ask.

 

Have not read anything that says illegal persons shall also be counted just spins on words .

 

Because they are an inhabitant, and thus should be counted as they always have been since the first US census under George Washington in 1790.

 

Filling out the census form is required by law.

Why would that question cause less response?

 

Because illegal aliens will fear the government will use the information to deport them.



"During the past two decades, the Census Bureau has had to contend with significantly increased distrust, based on concerns about government intrusion and privacy. When the 2000 Census was taken, controversy erupted over the Census questions, with congressional leaders and others calling on people to disregard questions they found intrusive. In one survey, 71 percent of respondents said that intrusive questions should go unanswered. This problem continued with the 2010 Census—between 2009 and 2010, one survey showed the Census Bureau dropped in its “trust” rating from 75 percent to 39 percent. One Congresswoman publicly proclaimed that her family “will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because ‘the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.’”

A mandatory inquiry into citizenship status is all the more likely to engender privacy concerns, particularly among non-citizens. “The nuanced reasons for the question . . . will of course be lost to millions upon millions of Americans. The question will be viewed with suspicion.” “It is foolish to expect that census-taking is immune from anxieties that surround such issues as undocumented aliens, immigration enforcement, terrorism prevention, national identity cards, total information awareness, and sharp increases in surveillance generally.”

Amicus Curiae brief by former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau in Evenwel v. Abbot

 

OK then they should be counted as an illegal inhabitant that gets no representation and no US funds .

 

This whole question is just another example of political timidness by both parties. I like the gerrymandering angle recently mentioned; a system created by the left to promote minority representation which has now been turned against them by the right.

The illegal immigrant population is largely working and part of an economy running wide-open, presently. Congress needs to quit squabbling and step up and do something about it, for the present illegal population, and for all future questions on this issue.

Simply enforcing existing law would handle almost all questions and issues regarding Immigration. It takes 2 parties to break Immigration law - an illegal immigrant, and an employer. All the other rich countries in the world use foreign labor, just like us. And most of them regulate Citizenship and residency of foreigners by regulating their employers. It is a fact of life for a successful Society and has been through-out history. And it will continue to be so. Arguing against that is usually evidence of racism on the part of the speaker, though that is always denied. At least Trump laid it all bare for everyone with the "****hole" comment. The latest GOP clamoring to basically just end all Immigration is a pretty good example of that, though they began this latest anti-Immigrant campaign by declaring to only be opposed to illegal immigration. Blaming problems on The Other People is the oldest route to political power in millenia of human history and sadly looks to still be an effective route to power even in a free democracy.

But to subtly enforce Immigration law by enforcing Employment law would require an overhaul and updating of the IRS and SSA computer systems, for one, and Conservatives would never ever support that, so they are sunk by their own stupidity on that point. A similar effort to fully fund Department of Labor staffing levels would also be blocked by Republicans as more burdensome tyrannical Government Regulation by the Nazi Communist Democrats.

It would also require further improvement and change to our health care delivery system, because a prime reason illegals are employed is often because they will take a job with no health care benefits. You know, the kind of jobs not requiring "skills" worthy of Conservatives who think people without their own particular "skills" don't deserve to have access to health care.

Overhauling the existing foreign labor visa systems would also help tremendously on these questions. Department of Labor was recently ordered to expand the H-2 program in terms of total visas allowed (a program used by both Trump businesses and the Federal Government itself), but with no changes in regulation or oversight of a thoroughly corrupt program rife with abuse of foreign employees.

And in the mean-time, scores of thousands of small business will just keep right on trying to survive, which often requires being willing to ignore existing law, because that's what the competition is doing, and since few are getting caught for doing it, those businesses are forced with choosing to do the same, or not being in business.