ADVERTISEMENT

Politico: Trump's Revenge on California- The Census

FAUlty Gator

HR Legend
Oct 27, 2017
37,953
47,307
113
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/trump-california-census-342116

LOS ANGELES — Fear is rising among Democrats over the prospect that President Donald Trump’s hard line on immigration might ultimately cost California a seat in Congress during the upcoming round of reapportionment.

Top Democrats here are increasingly worried the administration’s restrictive policies — and the potential inclusion of a question about citizenship on the next U.S. census — could scare whole swaths of California’s large immigrant population away from participating in the decennial count, resulting in an undercount that could cost the state billions of dollars in federal funding over the next decade and, perhaps, the loss of one of its 53 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The fears are well-founded: According to the population formula used by Congress to distribute House seats every 10 years, California is currently on the bubble in 2020, on the verge of losing a seat for the first time in its history.

California’s Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, on Wednesday proposed spending more than $40 million on the state’s own census-related outreach efforts to avoid that fate.

“There’s a lot of fear” about the census count, said Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc., the voter data firm used by both Republicans and Democrats in California. “The state is starting to get together resources, because it does have an actual direct impact … on state revenues if we have a severe undercount.”

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told POLITICO the Trump administration’s management of the census could have “devastating effects” on his state.

“The citizenship question is just the latest red flag — maybe one of the biggest — but just the latest red flag,” Padilla said.

Angst about the 2020 census took hold nationally long before the Justice Department urged the U.S. Census Bureau last month to ask people about their citizenship, a request first reported by ProPublica. The bureau has been hampered by management questions and funding shortages that voting-rights advocates fear could hinder efforts to reach immigrants and other hard-to-count groups.
 
The point of he census is to determine the total number of inhabitants in order to set Congressional apportions. I would have thought you knew that.
I know that is the primary purpose, but it's used for a number of other important purposes, as well. Don't you think citizenship is at least as important as the other questions the census asks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aflachawk
How the hell can you have a census that doesn't include the citizenship question? Really? What's the point of even having a census?
I agree with this.....California shouldn't get a higher proportion of federal money because they have a high proportion of illegals.....legal non-citizens ie green card/work visa types should be counted.
 
Why? It's managed for nearly 250 years hasn't it?
Excellent point. I had always assumed that was among the questions. I'm very surprised to learn it isn't. Thank you. Now I will return the favor because you prompted me to do some research.

The citizenship question was asked until the 1950 census. Since then it has been asked by the Census Bureau in a different survey. The DOJ says it needs the information to deal with gerrymandering accusations.

Here's a column about the question. It is a column, but I have no reason to doubt the historical references.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-census-should-ask-about-citizenship-1516044136

Here's a NYT story that says the question was asked until 1960.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/us/census-citizenship-status-immigrants.html
 
Last edited:
Might surprise you but I do think it's fair to have a citizenship question.

The main reason is that our representatives are suppose to represent the interests of citizens, not immigrants legal or illegal.
 
Might surprise you but I do think it's fair to have a citizenship question.

The main reason is that our representatives are suppose to represent the interests of citizens, not immigrants legal or illegal.

Actually I do not believe that's true. Apportions are made based on inhabitants, citizens or otherwise
 
I know that is the primary purpose, but it's used for a number of other important purposes, as well. Don't you think citizenship is at least as important as the other questions the census asks?

Exactly, which is why you need an accurate count of the number of people in a state. Otherwise programs become underfunded and don't work efficiently. Then Republicans complain that the government can't do anything right so they demand more cuts making the programs work even less efficiently. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Exactly, which is why you need an accurate count of the number of people in a state. Otherwise programs become underfunded and don't work efficiently. Then Republicans complain that the government can't do anything right so they demand more cuts making the programs work even less efficiently. Wash, rinse, repeat.

This +1000

The GOP is actively working to make the census less accurate, including fighting against the statistical modeling tools that supplement the hand counts. And they do it because a less accurate census is likely to provide them with a political advantage; which is far more important to them than a well functioning government or the welfare of our people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
Exactly, which is why you need an accurate count of the number of people in a state. Otherwise programs become underfunded and don't work efficiently. Then Republicans complain that the government can't do anything right so they demand more cuts making the programs work even less efficiently. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Just out of curiosity: Where do you stand when the liberals demand that the Census Bureau replace the actual head count with a computerized extrapolated number, since the actual count discriminates against minorities?
 
This +1000

The GOP is actively working to make the census less accurate, including fighting against the statistical modeling tools that supplement the hand counts. And they do it because a less accurate census is likely to provide them with a political advantage; which is far more important to them than a well functioning government or the welfare of our people.
Bingo! This is the attitude I referred to in my reply to another poster. Liberals want to ignore the specific head count and replace it with a formula they think will help increase their influence.

Screw the Constitution; when the Founders called for an "actual enumeration," what they meant was "educated guess."
 
This +1000

The GOP is actively working to make the census less accurate, including fighting against the statistical modeling tools that supplement the hand counts. And they do it because a less accurate census is likely to provide them with a political advantage; which is far more important to them than a well functioning government or the welfare of our people.
Bingo! This is the attitude I referred to in my reply to another poster. Liberals want to ignore the specific head count and replace it with a formula they think will help increase their influence.

Screw the Constitution; when the Founders called for an "actual enumeration," what they meant was "educated guess."

100% false. Liberals want an accurate census, and to do that means using statistical tools that are proven accurate. Conservatives absolutely want to the census to overlook millions of people, because it is in their best interest to miss those people.

Enumeration simply means establishing the actual number, and does not imply a specific methodology other than, one would presume, the most accurate one. The very last thing the GOP wants is an absolutely accurate count.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
I'm not going to talk about money distribution as that should be done by a count of actual living bodies in different areas for the highest effectiveness.

But why should a state that harbors numerous illegal aliens, aka people who violated the law when the entered this country or stayed in this country past their legally allowed term, be able to count those illegal aliens in their census count that is used to determine the number of elected officials to send to Congress and thereby the number of electoral votes in presidential elections?

Basically it allows a state to bring in a bunch of illegals, count them in the census every 10 years, then use that to influence congressional votes and presidential elections towards their favor. This also means that illegal aliens are effectively voting for the president every four years. That significantly violates the principles of the Constitution. States are supposed to have equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House and only legal citizens that haven't lost voting rights are supposed to be able to vote for president. Allowing states to game the system through illegal manners, like illegal immigration, is not ok.

I think that it is fair to have two census counts. 1 for total legal residents and 1 for total living souls. The easiest way to do that is to ask an additional question when taking a single census questionnaire.

This also gets to the point that we should make immigration a lot easier and cheaper to accomplish legally so that we wouldn't run into stupid problems like this.
 
I agree with this.....California shouldn't get a higher proportion of federal money because they have a high proportion of illegals.....legal non-citizens ie green card/work visa types should be counted.
Wrong. Constitutionally they should be counted.
 
I'm not going to talk about money distribution as that should be done by a count of actual living bodies in different areas for the highest effectiveness.

But why should a state that harbors numerous illegal aliens, aka people who violated the law when the entered this country or stayed in this country past their legally allowed term, be able to count those illegal aliens in their census count that is used to determine the number of elected officials to send to Congress and thereby the number of electoral votes in presidential elections?

Basically it allows a state to bring in a bunch of illegals, count them in the census every 10 years, then use that to influence congressional votes and presidential elections towards their favor. This also means that illegal aliens are effectively voting for the president every four years. That significantly violates the principles of the Constitution. States are supposed to have equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House and only legal citizens that haven't lost voting rights are supposed to be able to vote for president. Allowing states to game the system through illegal manners, like illegal immigration, is not ok.

I think that it is fair to have two census counts. 1 for total legal residents and 1 for total living souls. The easiest way to do that is to ask an additional question when taking a single census questionnaire.

This also gets to the point that we should make immigration a lot easier and cheaper to accomplish legally so that we wouldn't run into stupid problems like this.

I guess I would say what we say to liberals when they don’t like the constitution, don’t like it get it changed.
 
Let's count them but identify them as what they are,.... Then we can use accurate data as it applies to various needs....
 
Just out of curiosity: Where do you stand when the liberals demand that the Census Bureau replace the actual head count with a computerized extrapolated number, since the actual count discriminates against minorities?

I am for whichever model provides the most accurate results. I would have to see the scientific data behind that decision to give you an answer.
 
Guess what, we can change things, remember hope & change?... And apparently it did work this way up until 1950....
Change it because the only way the GOP can stay on top is to gerrymander that hell out of the nation and write absurd voter laws to suppress voting, you mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Change it because the only way the GOP can stay on top is to gerrymander that hell out of the nation and write absurd voter laws to suppress voting, you mean.

No, I meant that we used to do it this way....
 
This +1000

The GOP is actively working to make the census less accurate, including fighting against the statistical modeling tools that supplement the hand counts. And they do it because a less accurate census is likely to provide them with a political advantage; which is far more important to them than a well functioning government or the welfare of our people.
Bingo! This is the attitude I referred to in my reply to another poster. Liberals want to ignore the specific head count and replace it with an educated guess.
 
100% false. Liberals want an accurate census, and to do that means using statistical tools that are proven accurate. Conservatives absolutely want to the census to overlook millions of people, because it is in their best interest to miss those people.

Enumeration simply means establishing the actual number, and does not imply a specific methodology other than, one would presume, the most accurate one. The very last thing the GOP wants is an absolutely accurate count.
Except that the damned Constitution gets in your way...AGAIN! This is a really good example of why I felt I had to vote for the current occupant of the office.

Boo, those "statistical tools" you are talking about are POLLS....you know, like the ones that assured us Hillary was going to win in a landslide and the Brits were going to say in the EU.

Do you also think election should be decided by sampling tools? That's a serious question, because I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would oppose that while supporting using the method for counting.

If the method should be changed to become more accurate, by all means change it. Just do it legally. Amend the Constitution. If that isn't possible, step back and consider what you're proposing: Since the Constitution prevents your method and most Americans don't want it, depend on the courts to do "what's right."
 
I am for whichever model provides the most accurate results. I would have to see the scientific data behind that decision to give you an answer.
Does it mean anything at all to you that the Constitution requires "an actual enumeration"? They didn't have computers in the 18th century but they certainly knew about sampling and extrapolation -- and they had a better argument for using it instead of an actual headcount then, because of the way the population was distributed.
 
Does it mean anything at all to you that the Constitution requires "an actual enumeration"? They didn't have computers in the 18th century but they certainly knew about sampling and extrapolation -- and they had a better argument for using it instead of an actual headcount then, because of the way the population was distributed.

As I said, I am for whichever way is the most accurate. Who gives a crap how it was done in the 18th century? They did what they had to do, however that doesn't mean it is appropriate for how things are done today. Your argument is akin to saying our military should be using muskets because that's what they used in the 18th century and it worked well enough for them.
 
Except that the damned Constitution gets in your way...AGAIN! This is a really good example of why I felt I had to vote for the current occupant of the office.

Boo, those "statistical tools" you are talking about are POLLS....you know, like the ones that assured us Hillary was going to win in a landslide and the Brits were going to say in the EU.

Do you also think election should be decided by sampling tools? That's a serious question, because I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would oppose that while supporting using the method for counting.

If the method should be changed to become more accurate, by all means change it. Just do it legally. Amend the Constitution. If that isn't possible, step back and consider what you're proposing: Since the Constitution prevents your method and most Americans don't want it, depend on the courts to do "what's right."

BS. The constitution does not specify how to conduct the census, just that we need to ascertain the numbers. And of course you know why I would oppose restricting the method to the least accurate method we have. But you have a hard time with this because you know that you don't want an accurate count.
 
Except that the damned Constitution gets in your way...AGAIN! This is a really good example of why I felt I had to vote for the current occupant of the office.

Boo, those "statistical tools" you are talking about are POLLS....you know, like the ones that assured us Hillary was going to win in a landslide and the Brits were going to say in the EU.

Do you also think election should be decided by sampling tools? That's a serious question, because I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would oppose that while supporting using the method for counting.

If the method should be changed to become more accurate, by all means change it. Just do it legally. Amend the Constitution. If that isn't possible, step back and consider what you're proposing: Since the Constitution prevents your method and most Americans don't want it, depend on the courts to do "what's right."

This is Article I, Section 2 of the constitution (at least the parts that haven't been changed by later amendments):

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

It actually specifically says that the method of the count is to be determined. I don't have the time to go through all the laws on how to conduct a census but your assertion that the constitution directs a certain method for the census to be conducted is not accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
As I said, I am for whichever way is the most accurate. Who gives a crap how it was done in the 18th century? They did what they had to do, however that doesn't mean it is appropriate for how things are done today. Your argument is akin to saying our military should be using muskets because that's what they used in the 18th century and it worked well enough for them.
So your answer is that the Constitution doesn’t matter. You are an honest liberal. Kudos.
 
This is Article I, Section 2 of the constitution (at least the parts that haven't been changed by later amendments):



It actually specifically says that the method of the count is to be determined. I don't have the time to go through all the laws on how to conduct a census but your assertion that the constitution directs a certain method for the census to be conducted is not accurate.
Why do you think they put the word “actual” in front of “enumeration”?
 
Except that the damned Constitution gets in your way...AGAIN! This is a really good example of why I felt I had to vote for the current occupant of the office.

Boo, those "statistical tools" you are talking about are POLLS....you know, like the ones that assured us Hillary was going to win in a landslide and the Brits were going to say in the EU.

Do you also think election should be decided by sampling tools? That's a serious question, because I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would oppose that while supporting using the method for counting.

If the method should be changed to become more accurate, by all means change it. Just do it legally. Amend the Constitution. If that isn't possible, step back and consider what you're proposing: Since the Constitution prevents your method and most Americans don't want it, depend on the courts to do "what's right."
I've participated in data collection for the census, your claim that it has to do with liberal vs conservative is nonsense. It's about money. From the feds all the way down to the local. The municipality I worked with chose their option based on best bang for the buck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Why do you think they put the word “actual” in front of “enumeration”?

e·nu·mer·a·tion
əˌn(y)o͞oməˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
  1. the action of mentioning a number of things one by one.
    "the complete enumeration of all possible genetic states"
    • formal
      the action of establishing the number of something.
      "detailed enumeration of the income of the household"

Either you don't know the definition of enumeration or the GOP is trying to invent a new definition so they can explain a policy they want (wouldn't be the first time they've done this)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Either you don't know the definition of enumeration or the GOP is trying to invent a new definition so they can explain a policy they want (wouldn't be the first time they've done this)

I guess the only constitutional way to do it is to go house-to-house, line up everybody, and count them. Giving people a form to fill-out and mail-in would not be an "actual enumeration."

:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I am for whichever model provides the most accurate results. I would have to see the scientific data behind that decision to give you an answer.
Does it mean anything at all to you that the Constitution requires "an actual enumeration"? They didn't have computers in the 18th century but they certainly knew about sampling and extrapolation -- and they had a better argument for using it instead of an actual headcount then, because of the way the population was distributed.

Incorrect. Modern statistical theory was discovered and widely implemented in the 20th century. Some visionaries like Laplace utilized and pursued forward thinking methods during that time but it was rare and not well accepted by the academic community.

So no, the founders did not understand sophisticated sampling and extrapolation as employed on modern data.

Stop speaking out of ignorance.
 
I've participated in data collection for the census, your claim that it has to do with liberal vs conservative is nonsense. It's about money. From the feds all the way down to the local. The municipality I worked with chose their option based on best bang for the buck.
I think that's a different discussion than the one the rest of us, at least Boo and I, are having. He's saying we should use sampling methods because there would be less chance of undercounting people, specifically illegal aliens. I'm saying that would be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the relative cost of the thing. And I'm sure that if using sampling methods was likely to benefit the GOP instead of the Democrats, the Republicans would be demanding a change and the Dems would be fighting it.

What matters to me is following the Constitution.
 
ADVERTISEMENT