What is Digg?172 Comments
- elcalrissian, on 11/05/2009, -18/+94Soooooo
the census, which is used to determine house of represenative districts, is not asking about citizenry?
It looks like states with high illegal immigrant populations will gain a represenative or two. California? Texas? - bluto36, on 11/05/2009, -13/+73not sure why this would be a problem.
shouldn't the census know whether or not the people or citizens? - ghengiskhan1, on 11/05/2009, -35/+84This ***** congress has got to go. This is a collection of the most useless, idiotic, criminal and anti american people ever to be assembled in one place.
How can asking about citizenship be a bad thing to democrats? Would one of you smegma eating obamazombies please defend this position. I have GOT to see how you justify this position. - ChoosyMother, on 11/05/2009, -15/+63That's because THEY DON'T CARE!
- edstate, on 11/06/2009, -9/+47The Government does not care about your little theories, and your "common" sense.
- simongiln, on 11/06/2009, -6/+35From Amendment 14 of the Constitution: "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."
All people save Indians not taxed; not just citizens. The number of citizens has never determined the # of house representatives (article 1 section 2), and even after Amendment 14 (which effectively got rid of the "three fifths of all other Persons"[slaves] part), it still doesn't determine house representation. Thus, it's not technically relevant to the census. So, chill. It's not like it's legal for them to vote for a congressman.
Mind you, I think the census *should* ask the question, seeing as they have done so in the past (the 2000 census did, at least), but it's irrelevent to representation (just like most of the questions).
To all of you who have just recently started complaining about too many questions on the census: where the hell have you been? This isn't even remotely new. It's as if things the government has been doing for decades are now suddenly evil, simply because it's someone else overseeing them... - stompk291, on 11/05/2009, -7/+33no. but they will ask you 50 questions that were NEVER envisioned when this thing was created.
- ucbmckee, on 11/06/2009, -13/+35The Senate made the right decision. The purpose of the census is not to count citizens, but to count and record demographic data of people living in the country. Sure, it sounds like an entirely reasonable question and the data would be good, but it's already hard enough to get data on illegals and the presence of this question would likely freak them out more. It's a lesser of two evils situations: ask for citizenship data and only be able to record half the number of illegals (and, since the govt is expected to go to great lengths to get this data, end up costing a lot more), or don't ask it and get a more accurate census.
- JHW539, on 11/06/2009, -6/+27400 million forms are ALREADY PRINTED. Forms that the Republicans had no problem with when they were asked, "Are these OK? It'll cost a bundle to change them" last year. Another case of conservative Republicans eager to waste hundreds of millions of dollars. For absolutely nothing - it is a matter of settled law that no, citizenship doesn't matter to the census. If you have a problem with that, bring a suit and change the law or amend the Constitution (which defines the census).
I can't believe the number of people suckered in by such transparent pandering BS. - stompk291, on 11/05/2009, -27/+48disgusting. they don't even TRY to hide their corruption anymore.
- Wosat, on 11/06/2009, -20/+37"Critics said Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive."
Expensive? That's why we can't count citizens in the census, because it's too expensive? Congress has spent how many trillions of dollars on stimulus, bailouts, and more bailouts (over $2 billion more for GMAC just recently, not that anyone noticed). They're about to spend $1+ trillion on a new government insurance program. But adding a line-item on the census forms is cost prohibitive??? Really?!?!?!
They think we're idiots. That's the only explanation. - WeAreAWAKE, on 11/06/2009, -17/+34Let me get this straight...a state gets more representation (eg. more representatives) based on the number of people in the state including illegal aliens? So...the hired representatives should then represent the illegal alien's desires by allowing other illegal aliens (family, friends, etc.) easier across our borders? And then they can bring more illegal aliens to the country, etc., etc., until the entire country is run by individuals that have illegally invaded our country...and are then in control? Following this logic, China could take over the United States by flooding it with Chinese...and then China owns the USA. Is it just me...or is this insane?
- jdmgomoo, on 11/05/2009, -15/+31How about just whether they are an illegal immigrant?
- johndk, on 11/06/2009, -5/+18Determining the size of a population is actually one of the more difficult things to do from a statistical perspective. Care must be taken to insure the quality of the data. The primary goal of the census is to count the number of people living in the country. No other questions should interfere in that enumeration and hence bias the count (downward).
So even though I generally agree that Washington is messed up, in this case they got it right. - MercenarySlick, on 11/06/2009, -10/+23Here's another interesting fact.
If the census only included US citizens, the average national life expectancy (excluding non-Americans) would go up by 1 year. A lot of indicators that gauge the US get tainted by the millions of illegal immigrants who come from our bordering 3rd world country, making us look like one. - belthize, on 11/06/2009, -3/+15At first blush I agree it seems like a fairly obvious question to ask but .... The census has pretty much one purpose, to determine the number of people living in an area as a basis for Congressional representation (and money).
It's already federal law that representation is based on total people living in an area, not just US citizens. This includes *legal* residents as well btw.
By asking citizenship status there's a very good chance you'd miss counting a significant number of people who'd refuse due to deportation fears. Put another way, the census is not designed to locate or identify individuals, it's designed to count, any question put in there that would cause people to refuse to answer ends up skewing the result needlessly. This ultimately punishes a state (one with significant illegal alien presence) for what is essentially a federal issue (border control).
We already have fairly accurate estimates on the number of illegal aliens, asking in the census accomplishes very little. I personally don't care either way, just answering the question of why wouldn't you ask. - LymanZerga, on 11/06/2009, -2/+14Then we should not rely on this statistic when assigning the number of House representatives to each district.
- Pseudorious, on 11/06/2009, -5/+17Illegal aliens come from all nations, and are of all races, shapes and sizes. The second most frequent nation of origin is Canada.
It's only your racism that has been revealed.
I simply believe that justice is blind and the rule of law includes equal protection. As a result, illegal aliens should be deported without regard to race. - irvman21, on 11/06/2009, -0/+12"All of a sudden people immigrating is an issue"?
It's been an issue for over a hundred years, there have been dozens of laws passed to stem the flow of immigrants, illegal and legal, into the United States starting with The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 and the US immigration Act of 1907.
Your arguments are based primarily on ignorance. Please educate yourself using the following link.
http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_immigrat ... - Waiting2awake, on 11/06/2009, -8/+19Nope, that is how it works. You truly are awake.
- kylere, on 11/06/2009, -0/+10I think we need to be able to count citizens and non citizens to allow the government to plan. That is the real reason for the census anyway.
- Isenborg, on 11/06/2009, -21/+31Lets see... we don't care if someone is a citizen or not. And we don't want to require valid ID for voting. Wonder if there is any connection there. Naw, couldn't be! Democratic party, the American people are starting to connect the dots, and when they do, you're in big trouble.
- Awesomebox5000, on 11/06/2009, -0/+10So upon further examination, the 2010 census was rewritten to include only 10 questions (http://2010.census.gov/ ). Someone somewhere ***** up...
EDIT: I tried linking the pdf directly but got a 404 error when I tried clicking it. - arkwald, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10If you don't want illegals having jobs then prosecute their employers. Seriously, if the cost of employing an illegal is more then the cost of employing a citizen then they will hire the citizen.
So how might you ask create this incentive. Make them loose everything. Make it so the penalty for hiring an illegal is that they have nothing left.
However I doubt this will ever happen. For several reasons but most of them are centered around the idea that businesses are more important then people. That in our country which is ostensibly about freedom for all is actually more of a feudal arrangement where those who have more means have more rights. Until you fix that we don't have a free country we have at best a dysfunctional republic and at worst a feudal oligarchy. - badtzmartin, on 11/06/2009, -0/+9Actually it doesn't. That's the central point of the article and this thread. You sir, should RTFA.
- sierrabravo, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10california may be getting a few more representatives...
- GailScott, on 11/06/2009, -2/+11Exactly.
People would be more reluctant to tell how many people are in the household if they're asked about their citizen status. - irvman21, on 11/06/2009, -8/+16It's not that they don't care, it's that the Democratic party wants to do everything they can to get as many illegal immigrants voting as possible. Anything that limits the ability of illegals to vote or draws attention to the number of illegals in this country is against their agenda. Be that by granting amnesty, or preventing laws from being passed to require ID's to vote, or by preventing questions from being asked on the Census form.
- deanjarvis, on 11/06/2009, -0/+7Umm... actually it does mean they can do what they feel is necessary as long as it follows the constitution. That's what elections are all about.
- biogears, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8So you want unlimited immigration into the US?
- johndk, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8Determining a population size is a difficult (statistical) problem and precautions should be taken to ensure the quality of the data. Once the population size is known, estimating the number of people who fall into a certain category is much easier. For example, if you would like to estimate the number of illegal aliens you can get a very accurate estimate of the proportion of illegals in the population based on a relatively small sample and then multiply this estimate by the population size.
- SpiderTeets, on 11/06/2009, -5/+12what does racism have to do with not wanting illegal immigrants in your country?
nothing - lindenwold, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8i was actually thoughtfully reading your comment up until "republitards"
get a clue, unoriginal name calling is tired and old, and it very loudly shows your immaturity - JHW539, on 11/06/2009, -3/+10If Vitter had a problem with it, the time to bring it up was last year when he was asked "Are these forms OK? Cause if they're not it'll cost hundreds of millions to fix. So we're good, right?" Why didn't he ask then? Was he too distracted by prostitutes or has this illegals question (a matter of long settled case law - they're included in the census until the Constitution is amended or the Supreme Court overturns a lot of precedent) just suddenly appeared?
Seriously, you're just fine with wasting half a billion dollars on a meaningless question - since citizenship has absolutely no legal impact on apportionment? I bet you call yourself a "Republican Conservative" too. - mrsurfboard, on 11/06/2009, -4/+10That's the game they play. Calling anyone who is against illegal aliens a racist. The race card is played all the time when the opposing sides beliefs need to be silenced.
- Doubledown, on 11/06/2009, -3/+9Yeah... who cares if the american public will be misrepresented because it will include illegal immigrants are include in the census.
/s - xdre, on 11/06/2009, -9/+15The Founders? Like James Madison, who proposed the ratio for the Three-Fifths Compromise that counted slaves (i.e., non-citizens) for representation purposes? Those Founders?
- mrsurfboard, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7Hence more electoral votes in the next election and since California always goes blue, its not hard to see the Democratically controlled Senates motivation here.
- Spindig, on 11/06/2009, -0/+6And give them lots of free stuff that they don't have to pay for. That should reduce the level of illegal immigration in this country.
- DamnMan, on 11/06/2009, -2/+8Holy Mother of God I think you need to try fitting more righteous indignation into your comment.
As a 20 something that was up all night drinking and barebacking my GF after a concert(Sadly I'm out of pot) I have to laugh at your utter stupidity and generalizations.
I see nothing wrong with this question or the general notion of Illegal immigrants remaining illegal. I even say that as an American that lived for a time overseas. I have gone to another country and had to deal with immigration and visa issues. At least my convictions are backed by real world first hand experience. What is yours based on besides anger and disdain? So ***** you and the horse you rode in on. - Doubledown, on 11/06/2009, -3/+9worth repeating
worth repeating.
This ***** congress has got to go. This is a collection of the most useless, idiotic, criminal and anti american people ever to be assembled in one place.
How can asking about citizenship be a bad thing to democrats? Would one of you smegma eating obamazombies please defend this position. I have GOT to see how you justify this position. - MWeather, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7That's 3/5 more than the British counted.
- badtzmartin, on 11/06/2009, -4/+10@Elranzer: Citizenship is not verified when you register to vote. It's supposed to be, but it's just not done.
Neither citizenship nor identitiy is verified when you actually vote. - freshgrease, on 11/06/2009, -5/+11Next up, we will have the illegals having the ability to vote in an election. Hell, why not skip the middle man and allow the rest of the world to vote for our leaders.
/s? I dunno. - inactive, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5If a census wants to determine how many white, hispanic, black or asian people live in an area it is logical to determine how many illegal aliens exist as well.
- Spindig, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6If they leave the question off entirely, there will still be no idea at all how many illegals there are. If the question is asked, there will be some that will answer it honestly which is better than no information at all.
- ImIce, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5Where does it ask if you're a citizen?
- ldkronos, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5As long as you don't live in my state, that's perfectly fine with me. It just means your state gets a slightly smaller voice in congress, and my state gets a slightly larger voice relative to yours.
- tgc1, on 11/06/2009, -2/+7Glad you're paying attention. Now only if you could get everyone else to open their ***** eyes.
- stompk291, on 11/05/2009, -19/+24worth repeating.
This ***** congress has got to go. This is a collection of the most useless, idiotic, criminal and anti american people ever to be assembled in one place.
How can asking about citizenship be a bad thing to democrats? Would one of you smegma eating obamazombies please defend this position. I have GOT to see how you justify this position. -
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is