Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

2020 Census Thread

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I don’t know to what extent your above scenario would happen.  But that doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to not ask the question.  No one really knows how many people are here illegally.  I think the general rule of thumb is 11 million, but I’ve heard estimates as high as 20+ million and as low as 7 million.  That’s an absurd variance that could be somewhat clarified by asking the question.  One point of the census is to gather information for future policy making.  Ascertaining a better understanding of the amount of people here illegally should be something everyone should want to do.  Especially if you want to figure out an effective and efficient mechanism for them to obtain legal status.

I disagree, I think conducting an accurate census is pretty much the whole reason you conduct the census in the first place. But regardless, the rationale you offered is information that can be better and more accurately gleaned from other sources. 

The entire legal dispute was about whether the Commerce Department could come up with a rationale for adding the question that passed the APA's sniff test as not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, and a team of administration and DOJ lawyers who spent well over a year working on it couldn't even convince John freaking Roberts (the guy who decided in Shelby County v Holder that we'd solved racism) that they had a legit reason for doing this.  That should probably tell us something, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sand said:

The government, by definition, represents the will of the citizenry.  At least, it should.  I have no issue with the census being used to apportion monies by a count of all people, but for purposes of representation it should not include those folks who have entered the country illegally.  There is no logical construct under which the current scenario makes sense.

I has created a perverse incentive, currently seen in full effect from the blue team, to admit as many as possible to boost blue state representation - largely successful.

 

Wanna change the Constitution and laws so government more accurately represents the will of the citizenry?  Sounds great to me!  Let's start with full voting Senate and House representation and participation in presidential elections for the millions of US citizens residing in Puerto Rico and the other US territories along with Washington DC.  Then lets abolish the electoral college to ensure that presidential candidates and their policy positions and campaigns cater to more than 20% of the states. Then let's adopt automatic voter registration for all US citizens so no citizen who wants to voice their opinion regarding the government is denied that right due to inadequate paperwork.

Once you guys get on board with those three moves you can come talk to me about amending the Constitution to count citizens instead of residents in the census. I look forward to working with you.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

 

Three, the problem with adding the question is that it will inevitably result in an undercounting of actual citizens due to fear of deportation. Consider for example children of undocumented immigrants who is born in the United States. Those children are US citizens; however many of their parents would likely choose not to respond to the census for fear of deportation, resulting in an inaccurate count.

"If you're a Jew pin a star to your clothing. No big deal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

I disagree, I think conducting an accurate census is pretty much the whole reason you conduct the census in the first place. But regardless, the rationale you offered is information that can be better and more accurately gleaned from other sources. 

The entire legal dispute was about whether the Commerce Department could come up with a rationale for adding the question that passed the APA's sniff test as not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, and a team of administration and DOJ lawyers who spent well over a year working on it couldn't even convince John freaking Roberts (the guy who decided in Shelby County v Holder that we'd solved racism) that they had a legit reason for doing this.  That should probably tell us something, no?

No.  Its been a question on almost every census ever conducted in this country.  It's a question that is asked by most other countries' censuses (often times in addition to questions like country of origin).  The simple rationale is that it is to get a better picture of the makeup of this country.  The point of the census is to gather information.  This would do that. 

I understand Trump's xenophobia and racism are a disqualifying element in the smell test you reference above, but it shouldn't be.  It is a valid question and one that would help shape legislative policies moving forward.  Even if you are the most left leaning, blanket amnesty supporting person, you should recognize that knowing what the actual number of people here to whom you are trying to grant citizenship would be a helpful, probably necessary tool.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

"If you're a Jew pin a star to your clothing. No big deal."

really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

No.  Its been a question on almost every census ever conducted in this country.  It's a question that is asked by most other countries' censuses (often times in addition to questions like country of origin).  The simple rationale is that it is to get a better picture of the makeup of this country.  The point of the census is to gather information.  This would do that. 

I understand Trump's xenophobia and racism are a disqualifying element in the smell test you reference above, but it shouldn't be.  It is a valid question and one that would help shape legislative policies moving forward.  Even if you are the most left leaning, blanket amnesty supporting person, you should recognize that knowing what the actual number of people here to whom you are trying to grant citizenship would be a helpful, probably necessary tool.  

It was asked in slightly different form (asked everyone if they were born elsewhere, then asked a follow-up about naturalization) through 1950, at which point it was dropped.   A citizenship question then appeared on a "long form census" that was sent to about 16% of people from 1820 until 2000, but the long form was replaced with an ongoing survey called the ACS (American Community Survey), based on the fact that the ACS got more accurate results on those questions. The question has not been posed to most census respondents since 1950.  Trump was proposing to add it to the normal census for the first time since large scale Hispanic immigration, not to mention since the days of government-sanctioned racial discrimination, perhaps not the model of governance on which we should rely. link

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying in the second paragraph, but it's not a "smell test." It's the law.  And Trump's xenophobia and racism were NOT a disqualifying element, in fact DOJ argued that they should not be considered by the court since the decision was Ross's to make, and to my knowledge they weren't.  Like I said, the government had a team of lawyers at its disposal and they had a long time to try to come up with an even passable reason for the change (since the info you claim it would provide could be more accurately obtained elsewhere) and they couldn't even convince the most conservative Supreme Court of our lifetimes. Your assertion otherwise doesn't magically undo that glaring fact.

Also, in case you missed it we have ample non-Trump evidence about the true motivation behind the GOP effort to add the question, so the "we're just trying to help make good policy!" argument is patently absurd.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

It was asked in slightly different form (asked everyone if they were born elsewhere, then asked a follow-up about naturalization) through 1950, at which point it was dropped.   A citizenship question then appeared on a "long form census" that was sent to about 16% of people from 1820 until 2000, but the long form was replaced with an ongoing survey called the ACS (American Community Survey), based on the fact that the ACS got more accurate results on those questions. The question has not been posed to most census respondents since 1950.  Trump was proposing to add it to the normal census for the first time since large scale Hispanic immigration, not to mention since the days of government-sanctioned racial discrimination, perhaps not the model of governance on which we should rely. link

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying in the second paragraph, but it's not a "smell test." It's the law.  And Trump's xenophobia and racism were NOT a disqualifying element, in fact DOJ argued that they should not be considered by the court since the decision was Ross's to make, and to my knowledge they weren't.  Like I said, the government had a team of lawyers at its disposal and they had a long time to try to come up with an even passable reason for the change (since the info you claim it would provide could be more accurately obtained elsewhere) and they couldn't even convince the most conservative Supreme Court of our lifetimes. Your assertion otherwise doesn't magically undo that glaring fact.

Also, in case you missed it we have ample non-Trump evidence about the true motivation behind the GOP effort to add the question, so the "we're just trying to help make good policy!" argument is patently absurd.

The “smell test” were your words not mine.

 Do you think having a more accurate understanding of how many people are here illegally would be good for policy or not good for policy? I’m not arguing on behalf of the GOP, I’m simply stating that having that information versus not having that information is different.  In my opinion having that information would be better.   You say there are better ways to glean that information, okay. I honestly don’t know if that is true or not true.  Why don’t we have that information currently? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

You are comparing people here illegally being concerned that they may be deported back to their country of origin to Jews during the Holocaust that were systematically rounded up and burned in ovens. 

 It’s a ridiculously offensive comparison, but okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

The “smell test” were your words not mine.

 Do you think having a more accurate understanding of how many people are here illegally would be good for policy or not good for policy? I’m not arguing on behalf of the GOP, I’m simply stating that having that information versus not having that information is different.  In my opinion having that information would be better.   You say there are better ways to glean that information, okay. I honestly don’t know if that is true or not true.  Why don’t we have that information currently? 

Sure, it would be great to get a more accurate picture of that information. But putting the question on the universal census for the first time in decades would be useless in that respect. The reason we can't get a fully accurate picture seems fairly obvious and is the same reason the GOP proposed to ask the question in the first place- people tend not to confess to illicit behavior on government documents. They either lie or they don't return the forms at all, either of which renders the data useless and harms the larger project.

The IRS asks you to declare income from illegal sources on your tax returns.  Do you think we can get a good picture of how many people are dealing drugs and embezzling from studying the responses of taxpayers to that question?

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

You are comparing people here illegally being concerned that they may be deported back to their country of origin to Jews during the Holocaust that were systematically rounded up and burned in ovens. 

 It’s a ridiculously offensive comparison, but okay.

I forgot you can't compare anything until there's systematic genocide.  A lot of these people came here from their COI because they would be murdered, enslaved or both.  Or maybe just them and their children were starving

So what happens when we send them back? 

FWIW, you realize that it wasn't "put this star on and then we're going to kill you" right?   

Edited by Sheriff Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I forgot you can't compare anything until there's systematic genocide.  A lot of these people came here from their COI because they would be murdered, enslaved or both.  Or maybe just them and their children were starving

So what happens when we send them back? 

FWIW, you realize that it wasn't "put this star on and then we're going to kill you" right?   

You can compare whatever you want. It is ridiculous to compare potential for deportation to the opening salvo for mass genocide.  I can’t believe this is not clear.  

And I’m not defending mass deportation or claiming that there aren’t real palpable reasons these people came here or denying that sending them back opens up all sorts of other moral quandaries, so please don’t suggest that I am.  

You made a statement that I think was ridiculous and only serves to provoke, not move anything along in the discussion.  You are free to disagree with me.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

You can compare whatever you want. It is ridiculous to compare potential for deportation to the opening salvo for mass genocide.  I can’t believe this is not clear.  

And I’m not defending mass deportation or claiming that there aren’t real palpable reasons these people came here or denying that sending them back opens up all sorts of other moral quandaries, so please don’t suggest that I am.  

You made a statement that I think was ridiculous and only serves to provoke, not move anything along in the discussion.  You are free to disagree with me.  

I like Sheriff Bart, but this sort of knocks this mini-debate out of the park.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

You are comparing people here illegally being concerned that they may be deported back to their country of origin to Jews during the Holocaust that were systematically rounded up and burned in ovens. 

 It’s a ridiculously offensive comparison, but okay.

But, the comparison is apt, unfortunately. It's as if America is following The Madagascar Plan already and when that plan fails, well, the next step is to take it to where Germany did. I am definitely not suggesting America do that however I don't think Germans had Death Camps in mind as a first step either.

Concentration Camps (Dachau = 1933), Madagascar Plan = August 1940 and when that didn't work, Extermination Camps = 1941

Knowing history is awesome. Over time, thinking changes and pretty soon what once was thought of as inconceivable turns into normal. Be careful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

I like Sheriff Bart, but this sort of knocks this mini-debate out of the park.

Looks like you underestimated this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Looks like you underestimated this board.

No. I fully expected the usual useful ones (you know what comes after useful) to come forth and spew nonsense unworthy of even sticking around for. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

You can compare whatever you want. It is ridiculous to compare potential for deportation to the opening salvo for mass genocide.  I can’t believe this is not clear.  

And I’m not defending mass deportation or claiming that there aren’t real palpable reasons these people came here or denying that sending them back opens up all sorts of other moral quandaries, so please don’t suggest that I am.  

You made a statement that I think was ridiculous and only serves to provoke, not move anything along in the discussion.  You are free to disagree with me.  

When it was instituted it wasn't conveyed as "the opening salvo for mass genocide".  All I'm saying is there's a similarity in an administration wanting part of the populace to identify itself, let's be honest, in both cases, a scapegoat, in order to hit it with retribution at a later time.   That's pretty similar. Sheesh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report sends 'flashing red lights' that the Census may not be ready for the 2020 count.

"This administration's failures" could "jeopardize a complete and accurate count," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the House Oversight Committee chairwoman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/report-sends-flashing-red-lights-census-may-not-be-ready-n1135966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 8:00 PM, squistion said:

Report sends 'flashing red lights' that the Census may not be ready for the 2020 count.

"This administration's failures" could "jeopardize a complete and accurate count," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the House Oversight Committee chairwoman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/report-sends-flashing-red-lights-census-may-not-be-ready-n1135966

Hope they get the issues ironed out. That report isn't clear on which if any of the unresolved issues are due to action/inaction of the current administration. Still, the Bureau has had 10 years to prepare for this including 3 years under the current administration. Red flags are not what you wanna see this late in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did ours yesterday. The online short form I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did ours yesterday, it was fairly easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just completed mine online. Simple, easy, took less than 10 minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cjw_55106 said:

I think it would have been fairly simple to tie stimulus checks to Census participation, saving the bureau tons of time and money. No participation, no payment. 

Technically pretty easy,  but with difficulties. Census doesn't ask for SSN or another common identifier so would have to rely on linking data by address and name.

Legally much more difficult. Census responses are legally limited in their uses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.