Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump administration reverses course on census, again, will pursue path forward with citizenship question

Trump administration reverses course on census, again, will pursue path forward with citizenship question

It still seems probable that the question isn’t ultimately included, but given the whiplash in the last 24 hours, you would need a pretty strong neck to feel comfortable making confident predictions about how this will end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IiFHkVWm7U

The Justice and Commerce Departments announced Tuesday afternoon that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Department of Commerce v. New York, the Trump administration had abandoned its quest to add a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census.

The surrender came as something of a shock. The Supreme Court explicitly said that the citizenship question was legal and that the only problem was the contrived reason offered for it. Given President Trump’s focus on the case, legal commentators were expecting the administration to quickly present a new rationale and have the Census Bureau work furiously to make up for the lost time. (The census questionnaire was supposed to be finalized by July 1.)

Nevertheless, the decision seemed final. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who is a personal friend of President Trump, and whose department oversees the Census Bureau, said he had started printing the questionnaires without the question. A trial attorney at the DOJ emailed the plaintiffs and told them the census would not have a citizenship question. Pressed by a federal judge in Maryland, DOJ lawyers declared that it was over.

But it was not over.

Like a general unaware his troops had deserted him, the President tweeted yesterday morning that the fight was continuing.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245460035850241

It wasn’t clear until yesterday afternoon, though, that the tweets actually had a connection to reality.

The Maryland judge, George J. Hazel, apparently follows the President on Twitter and, upon seeing the tweets, called for a status conference to figure out the government’s actual position.

At the conference, which was held by telephone at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the DOJ reversed itself. Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt told Judge Hazel:

We at the Department of Justice have been instructed to examine whether there is a path forward, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census. We think there may be a legally available path under the Supreme Court’s decision. We’re examining that, looking at near-term options to see whether that’s viable and possible.

In a letter to the judge in the New York case, the DOJ confirmed that it is exploring ways to re-add the question. But whether or not that happens, the government is beginning to print questionnaires without the question, the DOJ said.

On July 2, 2019, counsel for Defendants sent an email communication to counsel for Plaintiffs confirming that the questionnaire for the 2020 Decennial Census had been sent to the printer, without a question inquiring about respondents’ citizenship status, and that the process of printing the questionnaires had started. ECF No. 610-3. That representation was based on the information undersigned counsel had at the time, and it remains undersigned counsel’s understanding that the process of printing the questionnaires, without the citizenship question, continues.

The Departments of Justice and Commerce have now been asked to reevaluate all available options following the Supreme Court’s decision and whether the Supreme Court’s decision would allow for a new decision to include the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census. The agencies are currently performing the analysis requested, and, if they determine that the Supreme Court’s decision does allow any path for including such a decision, DOJ may file a motion with the Supreme Court seeking further procedural guidance for expediting litigation on remand.

The New York Times reports that President Trump is “focused on finding a way to add a question to the census,” apparently telling aides that, ultimately, this “might mean tacking on a question after census questionnaires had been printed.”

The Washington Post, meanwhile, has supposed inside gossip about the abrupt reversal. The basic thesis of the Post story is that there is virtually no chance the question will be added and the lawyers are just humoring the President.

According to the Post, the DOJ concluded soon after the Supreme Court’s decision that the question could not be added. “That is because the deadline to print was just days away, and officials knew there would not be time to successfully push for some other outcome,” the Post explains. President Trump pressed his lawyers to fight anyway, but the DOJ, backed by A.G. Barr, said it could not.

Some time after, Commerce announced that it was printing the census without the question. But then, “at some point between Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning…the landscape shifted dramatically,” in part because of President Trump’s tweets around that time. The story doesn’t explain what exactly caused the DOJ to backtrack. President Trump tweeted about the census case last week and the DOJ was apparently unmoved.

If there is truly no way to add the question, we should know it soon. Judge Hazel told the government that it has until Friday to decide whether it wants to keep litigating the case.

But for the time being, the reversal appears to have interrupted some celebrations.

(Live shot of President Trump to the plaintiffs)

The question probably won’t be included, but with so many uncertainties, the situation will continue to bounce around like a roulette ball in a wheel at the Trump Taj Mahal. Of course, this isn’t one of President Trump’s casinos—but come to think of it, that actually improves his chances of coming out on top.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

This is from a commenter at Conservative Treehouse. Interesting read, a bit lengthy.
urking Lawyer here.
The DoJ notice to litigants about printing without the citizenship question, and PDJT tweets about pursuing the citizenship question in court, are not inconsistent altho confusing to the casual observer. Key is that all 9 Justices concurred that asking the citizenship question is constitutional.
Everything else is just process.

Commerce told SCOTUS census form printing must begin in early July, hence the expedited review. Lets stipulate that is true (even if actually not) IF the actual census itself starts on the traditional April 1 2020. But A1§2.3 only says ‘and every subsequent ten years, in such manner as they (Congress) shall by law direct.’

Congress most recent ‘by law direct’ is 13USC§141 et seq, passed in 1977 and first applicable to the 1980 census. §141(a) says “the Secretary (of Commerce) shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter take a decennial census…” Does NOT say when during 1980 and every 10 years thereafter. Could, for example, be December 1 2020, consistent with PDJT’s tweet about postponing the census.

This gives PDJT potentially 8 months from now to resolve the citizenship question thru the courts and reprint after the win. SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional but questioned motive. (Remember the appeal they heard concerned NY challenging under the administrative procedures act (APA) of 1946 (5USC§551 et seq.). If APA is applicable, then motive is relevant.

BUT,5USC §551(4) says the APA applies to rules ‘designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” The Census is neither, but that issue per se did not reach SCOTUS because of the stupid way the gov responded to NY. Plus Congress in 13USC§141(f)(2) told Ross how to proceed, informing Congress of proposed questions 2 years in advance so they could intervene if they wished. Ross did so including citizenship question. Congress did not intervene, NY did under APA pretenses.

So PDJT has three legal weapons in his favor and 8 months to use them.
1. APA does not apply, and 13USC§141 does not require Ross to explain motives.
2. Citizenship is important, and as SCOTUS noted, both constitutional and a standard question for most other country census. That alone suffices for a good motive.
3. Delay til YE 2020 is lawful. And apportionment would be for 2022 election, so 8 month delay is also not harmful.

A useful tempest in a teapot. PDJT will win on this issue in the next round, and at the same time gets a terrific campaign issue. AG Barr just needs to get Ross some competent legal assistance.

    Close The Fed in reply to herm2416. | July 4, 2019 at 1:25 pm

    Exactly. Ross needs competent counsel. It was hard for me to believe the paucity of imagination with them.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Close The Fed. | July 4, 2019 at 2:25 pm

      Under 13 USC §141(a) Sec. Ross is authorized not only to determine the “form” the census will take but is also authorized to determine the “content” of the census. So under the authorization given him in 13 USC §141(a) he should determine that a citizenship question is necessary and then include it on the census form to be printed. And if the courts want to complain, too bad. There is no requirement that Ross seek judicial approval for the questions he puts in the Census. End of Problem but for all the screams and howls of outrage by the democrats when they realize they once again don’t get what they want.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | July 5, 2019 at 9:41 am

        With all that said, the title of this post should be:

        “Trump administration STAYS ON course on census, AND CONTINUES – will pursue path forward with citizenship question”

      PersonofInterests in reply to Close The Fed. | July 5, 2019 at 12:04 pm

      The Dept. of Commerce likely used an Obama Deep State Holdover for its lawyer(s) and is likely just another case where h is politicization and weaponization of our Federal Government is having long term negative implications.

    stevewhitemd in reply to herm2416. | July 4, 2019 at 6:08 pm

    I follow the logic here; I’m not a lawyer but I get where this is going.

    I do wonder if, knowing how the APA can be applied, whether people can claim that Ross (or anyone implementing the clear will of the Congress and the law) can say, “well yes you COULD include the question, but the PROCESS by which you did so is flawed. Better luck in 2030!”

    This is the point Zachriel, below, is making — if the Court says that one must follow the APA, then the easiest way to sabotage including the question is to continue to claim that the APA hasn’t been followed.

    I’m sure a Hawaiian judge could be found who would buy into that argument.

We the People… and our [unPlanned] Posterity.

It seems fairly obvious what happened. Trump decided to keep fighting, in spite of the difficult situation (the need to start printing).

The lawyers at DoJ and the bureaucrats at Commerce never even knew that was an option. It’s not the way things are usually done in D.C.!

So they announced what made sense to them to announce. The president tweeted what made sense to him to tweet. His message won because in that particular conflict, he’s the biggest dog by far.

What’s the big mystery? The office help think they’re in charge and that they can be as lazy as they want since the boss is snoozing in his office. Oopsies! Maybe he’s not as torpid as they thought. Now he wants them to get cracking and do their jobs. They should have asked first. Maybe someday they’ll learn.

I know which side I’m on. I voted for the guy in the corner office, not any of the flunkies.

“(Live shot of President Trump to the plaintiffs)”

ROFL X 1,000,000.

I suspect Ross was just caught in the middle between a rogue DOJ and the president, The DOJ is again not representing what the president wants. That the whole reason these cases even get this far because they are sabotaging the cases. The DOJ did not have authority to make the statement they did and did it under obtuse means by making the statement and not sending it to the correct people at the white house nor did they get the statement signed off on.

The representative from the DOJ needs to me penalized by the BAR, she effectively tried to undermine her clients wishes and failed to properly represent her client.

I saw this kind of thing just before Bill Clinton took office. To understand this sequence of events, you have to understand that each administration includes career members who belong to the opposition, and some of them will attempt to shape policy, all on their own.

The form it took that I observed was that some officer at the military personnel center at Randolph AFB had argued that benefits should be denied to a patient, because Clinton.
The answer back was that Clinton could only act through an executive order, and since he had not yet taken office, he could not issue an executive order. Therefore, unless and until the executive order came down, the rules would remain unchanged.

The rules never were changed.

All that happened here is that somebody speculated without knowing what was happening. The whiplash was completely unrelated to any actual policy change.

If there was a census question on citizenship…
What makes anyone think an illegal would answer it truthfully?

    Sanddog in reply to Extirpates. | July 4, 2019 at 12:04 pm

    The question isn’t “are you an illegal alien”. It merely asks if you are a citizen. Based on the number of Visas issued and LPRs, they can then extrapolate a rough estimate of people who are here without permission. Other agencies have said they can come up with “models” to estimate the illegal population but we all know how accurate models tend to be..this would be more like a wild-ass-guess.

    Close The Fed in reply to Extirpates. | July 4, 2019 at 1:28 pm

    Who cares if illegal aliens answer it truthfully?

    The point, at this point, is we an unalienable right to ask it.

Connivin Caniff | July 4, 2019 at 11:58 am

This is all the result of the intentional liar and dissembler Roberts, who is a bad one at both.

The executive branch is, after all, a co-equal branch, with just as much right and power to interpret what the Constitution says as SCOTUS. It was only John Marshall who said otherwise.

I find it appalling how poorly understood taking a Census is, by politicians, including the President, lawyers, ACLU, the mainstream media and the general public. Everyone thinks it is just a raw count of people and that if the administration includes a citizenship question people will be undercounted. There can be undercounts for all sorts of reasons – people do not answer the census, are travelling, in the hospital, answer it incorrectly or falsely (undercounting residents in a household), etc. For all of these, including if a citizenship question were to lead to undercounting, the effect should be adjusted out, by virtue of extensive, separate studies to estimate the undercounting. See section on Enumeration strategies – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census.

That said, House seats are apportioned based on residents, not citizens – http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/. Therefore, It is important to get the count of all people as correct as possible. Asking the citizenship question will probably suppress answers and undercount people, which as a technical matter should be fixed as discussed above, but better to start with the most accurate method (no citizenship question).

That said, it is certainly appropriate, for policy purposes, to know how many undocumented immigrants we have. It is ridiculous for some to think we have 11M, others 22M, and some say as high as 30M. Their net cost is large to Society – heatlth care, education, etc and there should be no ambiguity over how many there are. However, the citizenship question has been included for years in smaller sampling, to about 4 million households every year – http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2018/summer/article2.html (third paragraph).

“intent”
Since the first reason was unacceptable, any reason afterwards is just “making stuff up”. How can the Trump administration put anything forward which isn’t more made up stuff?

We have seen this before, and doesn’t work out well. Now intent matters in murder or manslaughter, but the left wants to plumb the depths of the heart, when conservatives are under the gun. When lefties are misbehaving, “You really need to shut up.”

I think claiming there is a deadline to begin printing is a ruse.
If there is anything our Government knows anything about… it is a printing press.
I would dismiss that deadline as out-of-hand.
So far as the Census goes, it is extremely important that invaders are not weighed as Citizens.
Which is of course exactly what the Democrat Party wants.

    jb4 in reply to snowshooze. | July 4, 2019 at 1:31 pm

    Unfortunately, what counts is what the US Constitution says, not what we might prefer. Aside from Indians and slaves, do you see any ambiguity that it intends that all residents be counted? (There is no mention of citizens or some similar wording, like “excluding those subject to the laws of another country”.)

    “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…”
    — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

      Close The Fed in reply to jb4. | July 4, 2019 at 1:44 pm

      Another thread had additional pertinent language.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to jb4. | July 4, 2019 at 1:57 pm

      The Constitution might say “person” or “persons” but it certainly doesn’t specify any requirements as to what the actual questions on the Census should actually be (beyond counting “persons” etc . . ). And it certainly doesn’t set a requirement that any reasons for any particular question have “judicial review” and “judicial approval” before the question is included in the census.

      In fact, 13 USC § 141(a) seems to specifically authorize the “Secretary” in this case Secretary Ross of Commerce to determine both the “form” and more importantly the “content” of the census.

      So Pres. Trump should just tell Sec. Ross to add the citizenship question to the census and be done with all this judicial overreach and democratic nonsense.

      Richard G. in reply to jb4. | July 4, 2019 at 7:23 pm

      — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 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…”
      * Changed by the 14th amendment section 2

      14th amendment, section 2, REQUIRES the citizenship question!-It redefines and spells out a formula for apportionment.It reads

      “Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the [male]* inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such [male]* citizens shall bear to the whole number of [male]* citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”-14th amendment section 2
      * changed by the 15th and 19th amendments.

      The 15th amendment states:

      “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” section 2 “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

      Pesky word; CITIZENS.

      Please show me where the 15th amendment speaks to proportional representation. It does not. It is silent.

      Likewise the 19th amendment states:

      “Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

      Again that pesky word CITIZENS

      Please show me where the 19th amendment speaks to proportional representation. It does not. It is silent.

      The 14th amendment speaks to proportional representation in Congress.
      Neither the 15th or the 19th amendments refer to the 14th amendment or to apportionment.

      The 14th, 15th, and the 19th amendments do not speak to ANY denial or abridgement of the right to vote due to age. They do not even mention ‘voting age’.

      As modified by the 15th and 19th amendments, the 14th amendment franchise is expanded from ‘ Male Citizens’ to include of the number of all CITIZENS of the age of 21 years .

      So please explain to Me how this proportional representation REDUCTION to the total number of CITIZENS counted for representation is to be accomplished without COUNTING the number of CITIZENS using the census question.

      The question is needed to count the number of unqualified nonvoting CITIZENS vs. qualified voting CITIZENS. Does the Administrative Procedures Act trump the 14th Amendment?

        jb4 in reply to Richard G.. | July 4, 2019 at 8:11 pm

        Your points are well taken. Then, do you have any idea why SCOTUS did not just say something like, “The question is required by virtue of X, Y and Z. Secretary Ross’ reasons are immaterial.”

          Richard G. in reply to jb4. | July 4, 2019 at 10:06 pm

          The cynic in me says that the Swampys in the DOJ intentionally sandbag the issues they want to lose.

          The adage goes ‘never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, but never dismiss malice.’

          If the point is never raised in court the judges can’t volunteer it themselves, perhaps (cough cough ahem).

        Milhouse in reply to Richard G.. | July 7, 2019 at 4:07 pm

        Sigh. As I pointed out in the other thread, you are completely wrong. The second section of the 14th amendment was made obsolete by the 15th. There are no states that deny the vote to any citizen, male or female, who is over 18, for any reason except crime. Therefore no state can incur the penalty that amendment 14.2 prescribes for doing so, and thus there is no need to calculate it.

        A state’s representation is not in any way affected by the number of its citizens, so there’s no constitutional need to count them, which is why they weren’t counted until 1900, and haven’t been counted since 1960. It would be useful to know their number today, but not for any constitutional purpose.

      Richard G. in reply to jb4. | July 4, 2019 at 7:37 pm

      By the way, the stipulation of 21 years of age for enumeration for apportionment may seem arbitrary, but it is no more arbitrary than the age stipulation for various offices such as President, Senate, or Congress.

      Me thinks they meant what they wrote.

        Milhouse in reply to Richard G.. | July 7, 2019 at 4:10 pm

        the stipulation of 21 years of age for enumeration for apportionment

        There is no such stipulation. You are imagining it, or making it up. The only mention of 21 years is in the penalty clause that you bizarrely keep citing; a state is not penalized for denying the vote to male non-felon citizens who are under 21. But since it can’t deny the vote to any non-felon citizen under 18, there is nothing to penalize in the first place.

Lucifer Morningstar | July 4, 2019 at 1:19 pm

“The Supreme Court explicitly said that the citizenship question was legal and that the only problem was the contrived reason offered for it.”

——–

Except I’ve looked far and wide, high and low and cannot find any requirements/law/regulations that specify that the reason for including any particular question on the Census must pass “judicial review” and be found “acceptable” to the courts.

So Pres. Trump should simply order the citizenship question to be included on the 2020 census form and be done with all this judicial nonsense. It’s all irrelevant.

    Lucifer Morningstar: Except I’ve looked far and wide, high and low and cannot find any requirements/law/regulations that specify that the reason for including any particular question on the Census must pass “judicial review” and be found “acceptable” to the courts.

    See the Administrative Procedure Act, which instructs reviewing courts to set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

      rabidfox in reply to Zachriel. | July 4, 2019 at 3:21 pm

      That only applies if the action will impact laws or regulations. Does not apply to the census.

        rabidfox: That only applies if the action will impact laws or regulations. Does not apply to the census.

        Not according to the Supreme Court, which held that “the Secretary’s decision is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.”

        Lucifer Morningstar: 13 USC §141(a) authorizes Sec. Ross to determine both the “form” of the Census and more importantly the “content” of the Census.

        Yes, but it doesn’t eliminate the requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (or civil rights law, or all manner of other legal requirements).

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | July 4, 2019 at 3:41 pm

      13 USC §141(a) authorizes Sec. Ross to determine both the “form” of the Census and more importantly the “content” of the Census. So he can simply add the citizenship question to the Census under that authority and be done with the whole mess.

      But what I don’t see is any requirement that any particular question or the “reason(s)” for including a particular question on the Census needs judicial review and approval before the question can be included in the Census.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/141

        Lucifer Morningstar: 13 USC §141(a) authorizes Sec. Ross to determine both the “form” of the Census and more importantly the “content” of the Census.

        Yes, but it doesn’t eliminate the requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (or civil rights law, or all manner of other legal requirements).

    Even simpler, Ross can simply restate the reason as the one divined by the lower court as the real reason Ross wanted it included.

    Roberts specifically stated in his ruling that the above reasoning was adequate.

Mark Michael | July 4, 2019 at 1:49 pm

Andrew Klavan on Ricochet last night interviewed Jenna Ellis, a legal expert, and she gave a surprising explanation for why Chief Justice John Roberts voted as he did. In her opinion, the case was a no-brainer: putting the U.S. citizenship question back on the decennial 2020 form is perfectly okay for the administration to do. It should never have been an issue in the federal courts. Her reason that CJ Roberts did what he did – in effect (he thought) delaying it until the next (2030) Census – was because he’s a NeverTrumper! It could hurt Pres. Trump’s reelection chances in Nov. 2020.

She compared it with the SCOTUS decision to not upend state-level gerrymandering. That decision is more consistent with a restrained view of the role of the federal bench & the SCOTUS in our governance. Given how goofy-looking some states’ district maps look, thanks to gerrymandering, that’s a more controversial ruling – but (per Ellis) a correct one. It is a political matter and the Constitution doesn’t give the courts the authority to play politics.

BTW, the U.S. Citizenship questions (“if you were born in a foreign country, are you naturalized?” is a form of it on some earlier Censuses) has been on a whole bunch of earlier Censuses: 1890 – to 1950 for example.

There are a thousand ways to put the question on, thanks to the liars’ paradox.

Would you swear that you are a U.S. citizen if we put that question on this form?

    That was an interesting article. Issuing an executive order seems like a good way to go. Also, elsewhere, there seems to be no reason the census could not be delayed some in 2020 if needed. However, as I noted in my earlier long (Census 101) post, if the President’s goal is to suppress numbers in blue states, he will fail, as undercounts for any number of reasons get adjusted out by virtue of extensive additional work.

      stevewhitemd in reply to jb4. | July 4, 2019 at 6:12 pm

      Yes, an undercount would likely be fixed — indeed, over-corrected if blue-staters get their way.

      I think at least part of this is that President Trump wants the question on the census and is bound and determined to have it done. He sees it as a reasonable question, and if there is one trademark to the various policies he has been pushing (not his words, his policies), it is to have a more reasonable government.

      Part of the push-back then is not just “if Trump is for it, I’m against it”, but also to stop Trump from having the small victories on reasonableness that over time shows Trump’s base that he’s getting things done.

Here is something that people are overlooking. The complaint against the inclusion of the citizenship question was that it would cause criminals, illegally residing in the US, to forego answering the census. However, no evidence was presented that this was likely to happen. The evidence against allowing it was largely restricted to establishing that the Secretary wished the question included and then a reason was found to “justify” its inclusion, after the decision was made. Under federal law, the Secretary can essentially ask any question that he wishes in the census. People are free to answer a specific question or not, as they choose. And, as it appears that the APA does not apply to Census questions, no reason for the incorporation of the question need be given.

Now here is the kicker. Even if the question would reduce the number of illegal aliens answering the Census, why would that matter? These people are not legal residents of the country. They are not citizens. They can not vote. And, they are subject to immediate deportation upon being encountered and identified. So, the only reason to desire that they answer the census is to use their numbers to unfairly change the apportionment of federal representation in favor of states which harbor these criminals. And, if the actual number of illegal aliens, in this country, is 30 million or more, that is nearly 10% of the population. That is significant. It is even more significant if most of those illegal residents reside in sanctuary states, counties and cities.

The controversy here has nothing to do with an accurate Census count and everything to do with increasing the power of liberal Meccas. It is a political issue and the SCOTUS should have dropped the whole thing as soon as it ruled that the question was legal and constitutional on its face.

    jl in reply to Mac45. | July 4, 2019 at 7:55 pm

    The complaint the it would cause an undercount of non-citizens was rejected by the Supreme Court.

    All of the arguments advanced by opponents of the question were rejected, except for the argument that Ross gave a different reason for inclusion than the one divined by the courts as his real reason.

    If Ross re submits his reason as the one divined by the court, the question goes in the census.

Let’s see now:

JR knew that asking for citizenship cannot be judged unconstitutional, now could he ?,

so instead he provided that stupid non answer to questions that should have been asked of those presenting their case for adding the question.

Is that guy dumb or what?

After reading the Roberts opinion on the case 2 things leap out at me:

1) This decision is awful, and completely depends on the district court’s ability to accurately read Secretary Ross’ mind.

2) All Ross has to do to placate the District court is state his reason for including the question as “Because I want to and in my judgement it’s an important question, and the merits of the data gathered outweigh the potential loss of accuracy caused by asking the question.”

Done.

Just Do It.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/04/report-trump-considers-executive-order-get-citizenship-question-2020-census/

Report: Trump Mulls Executive Order to Get Citizenship Question on 2020 Census

Decades from now when the 2020 Census data is publicly released, genealogical (and other) researchers will be glad the President Trump returned the Citizenship questions to the Census.

Up until 1850 only heads of households had their name listed. Before 1850 other household members were just counted by sex and whether free or slave in age ranges. More questions were added each decade thereafter about English language abilities, other native languages, education level occupation, employment status, etc.

From 1900 to 1940 (the last year publicly released) there were explicit citizenship questions, although previous censuses had birthplace questions.

President Trump is not asking anything new, He is just returning to the historical norm.

Decades from now when the 2020 Census data is publicly released, genealogical (and other) researchers will be glad the President Trump returned the Citizenship questions to the Census.

Up until 1850 only heads of households had their name listed. Before 1850 other household members were just counted by sex and whether free or slave in age ranges. More questions were added each decade thereafter about English language abilities, other native languages, education level occupation, employment status, etc.

From 1900 to 1940 (the last year publicly released) there were explicit citizenship questions, although previous censuses had birthplace questions.

President Trump is not asking anything new, He is just returning to the historical norm.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend