Oh, it is ON! CA sues over Census Question.

Well, well, well... I have been saying for some time now that the reasoning behind "sanctuary cities" was to throw off the apportionment of Representatives in favor of "sanctuary cities." Seems someone was listening!

California sues Trump administration over addition of citizenship question to census

The state of California sued the Trump administration Monday night, arguing that the decision to add a question about citizenship in the 2020 Census violates the U.S. Constitution. The state’s attorney general acted just after the Commerce Department announced the change in a late-night release.

In raw political terms, it has been estimated that an undercount feared by Democrats could cost California at least one seat in the House of Representatives and, on the national level, shift political power from cities to more rural communities with the benefits falling to the Republican Party, as The Post’s Michael Scherer has written.

This is a bigger deal than it might seem at first. The census is demanded by the US Constitution, specifically in Section 2:

3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative

Clear as mud?

The dual houses of Congress were a compromise between one group who wanted the states to have control of the Federal government, and another group who wanted the people to have control of the Federal government. Each state gets two Senators regardless of population, but Representatives are apportioned out according to population. So it is obvious that the more people a state has, the more power that state has in the House. California has benefited from that for quite some time; when it was settled, it had a low population as did most of the western states, and therefore claimed a very large area of land. As time went on, its natural beauty and mild weather attracted more and more people until it became the most populous state. No problem there; that's why the House is apportioned as it is. But...

In 1791, when the Constitution was ratified, there was no illegal immigration. The country did not enforce borders the way we do now,because there was no need to. We had not established a national identity, being just a colony of England. Our initial growth was due to immigration, because our meager population (already immigrants) wasn't large enough to grow quick enough to compensate for our industrial growth.

In 2018, that has changed. We now have immigration laws, border enforcement, and a population quite sufficient to maintain our workforce. Citizenship means more than just where one lives... it means where one has subjected themselves to the country. Illegal immigrants do not fall under this classification, as they have not subjugated themselves to the United States. An illegal immigrant can simply leave. They have no stake in the country where they reside,just as one particular group did not in 1791: Indians not subject to taxation as specified.

So there is precedent in the very document that authorizes the census.

There is also a strong legal argument: Illegal immigrants cannot vote in Federal elections... so why would their numbers have a voice in determining the relative strength of voters in the area they reside in? It is completely possible under the present system for ten citizens to live among 20 million illegal immigrants in a district, meaning there would be one Representative for ten voters! Now, I don't think anyone actually believes that such a district exists, but the principle remains: voters living in districts with higher than average illegal immigrant populations have more power in the ouse than those living among less illegal immigrants.

That also throws off the Electoral College, in favor of "sanctuary cities."

We're talking about a legitimate assault on the fairness of US elections and US representation. Personally, I don't think California has a snowball's chance in an overheated pizza oven of pulling this one off... the Constitution actually states that the census laws may be changed... but I suppose we'll see. In the meantime... everyone grab some popcorn. This could get interesting. If the "sanctuary cities" cannot keep this question from being asked, expect them to start backing away from protecting illegal immigrants... or even worse, advising illegal immigrants to lie! That is open and shut conspiracy to defraud the government, because while no law is enforced about not answering a census question, purposely lying on the census is a crime.

TheRedneck

Spent years pointing out that the rift between cities and the country folk was growing. It seems that them city slickers are stacking the deck illegally.

I agree that we need to account for all people in the US. But we need to know who is and is not a citizen.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I helped on the census as an enumerator in 2010, and I noticed quickly that there was nothing asked about citizenship... as a matter of fact, we were told specifically NOT to mention citizenship or question racial identity. Of course, the opinions of a lowly enumerator mean jack squat, so I kept my mouth shut for once.

I am a little concerned over the fact that asking that question may make a lot of people nervous about even responding to the census... but as you say, we need to know for purposes of fair apportionment who is and is not a citizen. And from a practical perspective,if a family of illegal immigrants chooses to not respond at all, well, they just don't get counted. The end result, from the perspective of apportionment, is the same.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't think that question should be added to the census. The census has grown far beyond its mandate as it is.

Neither do I think illegal aliens should be counted in the census, but the way to solve that is through existing immigration law, not expanding the already-invasive census.

Not to be picky, well yeah, to be picky but why does that 1791 to 2018 argument have merit with this issue but not when it comes to the 2nd? Sounds a little picky choosy to me.

a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

I think asking if one has legal citizenship is much more appropriate to the original intent than is a question of self-identified race. That one came about as a result of racial tensions... somewhere, someone decided that minorities were all poor and all needed help, so they started asking it to identify which areas of the country had higher minority populations so they could give them more money. Institutionalized racism, if you ask me. Race has noting whatsoever to do with ability.

I actually see this as a sort of trap for sanctuary cities. If they do nothing, their representation drops to where it should have been all along, but if officials try to tell people to avoid the census, they are going to lose that advantage anyway. If they try to tell people to lie to the census takers, that is in direct violation of Federal law and they can face prison time. Ironically, I have never heard of a case where an individual has been penalized for either not answering the census or for lying on it even. Publicly promoting lying on the census would likely be a different matter.

The whole point of this is to highlight what sanctuary cities are doing and put them at a disadvantage if they continue to try and skew their representation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: intrepid

because illegal immigration is not an inalienable right.

a reply to: intrepid

It's a question of reasonable interpretation to me. Section 2 allows for exceptions, appropriate at the time, to fairly apportion representation. The 2nd Amendment does not.

This is not a gun control thread, though. There's a simple way to implement gun control or to invalidate the census: amend the Constitution. That's how a civilized society works... change the law, don't ignore it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

ahem...

cen·sus
ˈsensəs/Submit
noun
noun: census; plural noun: censuses
an official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals.
"population estimates extrapolated from the 1981 census"
Origin

early 17th century (denoting a poll tax): from Latin, applied to the registration of citizens and property in ancient Rome, usually for taxation, from censere ‘assess.’ The current sense dates from the mid 18th century.

We all know the census is about citizens, not just population..

It is obviously required to count citizens separate to total population.

So YES we need that question.

immigration and ILLEGAL immigration are NOT the same thing.

Thank you for this. I saw something on Twitter about this and wondered, just didn't have the time to investigate the issue.

So there is a strong chance that power may be shifting within Cali...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Fascinating situation; thanks for the thread; I'd not thought about the issue from this perspective.

We're talking about a legitimate assault on the fairness of US elections and US representation.

Actually, its just my opinion, but I don't think the US elections have been fair for quite some time. But, if Cali wins this one, then its definitely only a matter of time before a significant total of the population will come to protest the entire system and it will be full-on Constitutional crisis. And I'd have to guess a lot of people in "fly-over" country are going to be asking whether they want to continue living in a Nation with California in it!

a reply to: Arnie123

I think you're right.

I am hearing about several cities in California who are suing California over the state's "sanctuary laws," and/or refusing to enforce them. I really haven't investigated this part of the plot, but it would appear on the surface that at least some areas are tired of the game. It is blatantly obvious from assorted reports that the sanctuary cities are paying a very high price for their actions in terms of crime, poverty, entitlements, and violence, and some are apparently not willing to continue paying it.

I keep coming back to DACA. Nothing's been done yet to protect them, and the mood of the country seems to be shifting. Soon it may be too late. Can anyone eligible for DACA say "Thank you, Schumer" as they're being loaded onto deportation trucks?

TheRedneck

So, california does not want the census to ask about citizenship, because only citizens are supposed to be used to figure the number of representatives by the constitution. Yeah, I guess a state with so many illegals and non-citizen resident aliens would not like to lose power.

Screw California, they have the same rules and rights as other states in this country. They are deflecting the governments attempts to make sure voting is being done properly, I feel they have a lot of non-citizens voting in elections and are trying to cover up their wrongdoings by breaking other check and balance laws. Maybe California is half immigrants, we will never know until someone checks.

Your right Redneck, I think lots of people in California are tired of some of the people running things breaking federal laws.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I wish we could eliminate the questions on race, personally.


It should never matter what the skin color of a person is.


But citizenship?

They used to ask that question up until 1950. Time to bring it back!

a reply to: TheRedneck
Some talking head mentioned that letting Cali leave the Union would take an amendment level vote of 3/4 ths of the States, and both houses of Congress. But what he never said was what procedure would it take to simply kick both the lands and the people of Californica out of the U.S.A.?? This might be a lot simpler way to roll.

Just remove all U.S. Border guards and let the Mexican Army roll up into what used to be the State of California. Quarantine the people of that State, like they do for Agricultural products, coming in, and voila, they can kiss the rifle butts of the Mexicans. In my estimation, there are already a couple of million Mexican Fifth Columnists living in Cali. Think of all of those Mexican Flags hanging out of windows, up and down the California Left Coast.

Trump can just mobilize the Cali Nat'l Guard to defend and guard Federal Installations, without impeding any Mexican Army units. This means Sacramento will only have it's Sheriffs, and State Police to deal with a highly mechanized modern Army. "Make my Day, Gringo"! When the invasion is complete, then the Feds can peacefully withdraw to the remaining American Territory in the West.

But think of this! When Lewis and Clark went into Louisiana Terr., the Spanish in Mexico, never agreed to this. They sent an armed force to interdict and capture the Corps of Discovery, but the small band of American Explorers were a moving target, and the Spanish missed them, and then figured they would simply disappear into the Wilderness, so they went back home.

In fact, Lewis and Clark were only supposed to be on a one way trip. A sailing ship of the U. S. Navy was supposed to meet and greet them, at the mouth of the Columbia River, and take them back around the Horn, to our Nation's capital, Wash. D.C. But the Corps of Discovery took too long in getting to the Pacific Coastline, and that ship ran low on provisions, so it's Captain had to relent and sail home. He did leave big iron pots at Seaside, Ore. for the expedition to make Salt, which was vitally needed to preserve meat.

So they wintered at Fort Clatsop, and then made it back home, overland, the next Spring. If the Spanish had grabbed them, then our history would be a lot different. They would have languished in some Mexican prison. But it's never too late for a repetition of history, to have the State Officers of the late, great, State of California, languishing in some Mexico City prison, until the U.S. Gov't agrees that Mexico has always owned California.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

I wish we could eliminate the questions on race, personally.


It should never matter what the skin color of a person is.


But citizenship?

They used to ask that question up until 1950. Time to bring it back!

They're fine with asking about race. Makes it easier to stick people in little boxes.

A census guy visited us 5 times over a month back in 2015, asking the same questions over and over. That 5th time, I really did wanna run him off with a gun like the olden days.

If this is done, California could lose 4 to 5 representatives.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

I wish we could eliminate the questions on race, personally.


It should never matter what the skin color of a person is.


But citizenship?

They used to ask that question up until 1950. Time to bring it back!

For demographic purposes, I insist they ask the question.

However, I'll extend an olive branch an say, the question can be posed as "optional".

Definitely a big yes on Citizenship.

Eric Holder isn't too happy.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

A census guy visited us 5 times over a month back in 2015, asking the same questions over and over. That 5th time, I really did wanna run him off with a gun like the olden days.

Not his fault, though.

I was one of those guys who had to keep showing up, day after day, asking questions. They actually warn you about that in orientation, too. The thing is, you can just tell them you refuse to answer any questions, and they'll leave like they're supposed to. They may ask a couple times, maybe explain how noting is used with law enforcement, but if you're insistent they will leave.

What happens next? All I know is that I was to write "refused to answer" on the form and turn it in. Supposedly a supervisor would make another attempt, but that was over my pay grade.

Easiest way to handle it is to just answer the questions. I can tell you, privacy is the biggest thing the Department of Commerce cares about. I have seen so many enumerators let go (fired) over little minor, useless indiscretions with information I can't even remember them all. I can only imagine what would happen if someone tried to actually misuse someone's information!

Even easier... fill out the damn form and mail it in. If there's anything that could be considered a shelter on your property, though, someone will be out over it anyway. They use aerial photography to pinpoint anything that could possibly be used for a residence... I had to check out quite a few hunting cabins, and a couple large tents!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Arnie123

The race questions are optional. There's a box on the form for that question that says "refused to identify."

Enumerators just have to ask them.

TheRedneck