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

It might also have to do with Obamacare in a round about way. Since everyone was required to get insurance and a marketplace was made, suddenly the government had an unprecedented amount of Big Data to look at concerning the population at large. I believe Obamacare is the end run aound the census because the census isn't timely enough, its inefficient, and its secret for like 72 years. Now you can say thats not its job, but who's to say someone else can't get their hands on that "electronic" data and use it for other purposes. I mean come on, no one thought someone would use Facebook against you for political gain....

So I saw a story in 2010 about Romneycare in Mass. and it said it had a 98% participation rate at the time. And I thought
how do they know that, then I started thinking it was all in the computers whether you had marketplace, employer provided or governmental assistance type of insurance or even if you were in the prison system. The 2% leftover was a transient population that was either homeless or other.

With that Data you could look at a state and determine to some degree of certainty how many people there were, how many were men and how many were women, their ages, their ethnicity and so on. Plus since they were making premium payments or needed a help if they couldn't afford the premium, they would have also provided an address. Even if they don't live at that address, thats plenty of information to work with as long as they lived in the general area or city.

Suddenly Democrat demands for universal healthcare have turned into a Big Data treasure trove with the possible unintentional ability to point out population inconsistencies in sanctuary cities.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I had to deal with three separate people coming to my home after I'd already taken care of it. To say I was not impressed by the inefficiency of the process would be an understatement. If they bothered me three times even though I'd already answered the questions, speaks to how mismanaged the process is/was.

The one before that, I had one census worker force his way in my door physically, then he started walking through my house peaking in closets and drawers. Had to remove him by force while he threatened me and demanded he had the right to search my home. After I got him outside, he stood there screaming at me threatening to have me arrested, so I called the police. He took off quickly. I complained, but the response was basically screw off, not our problem. A few weeks later a local article about the burglaries committed by census workers in the area showed up in the newspaper. You remember the problems with that census?

On topic -

I can only imagine how much money California has on the line if they can't include illegals as legal residents. They must have an illegal population rivaling the illegal population of the rest of the country they have to school, support and provide medical care for. No doubt that is behind them fighting this and as most things, it's about the money.

Less federal funds would mean raising taxes on their voters yet again, so if they can illegally get funding by lying in the census, I suspect they would do so. I'd argue California is the most litigious State of all and yet it's leaders care nothing about following the law themselves.

They are getting away with snubbing their nose at federal law now in sanctuary cities, so why would they care enough to not cheat on the census.

Not sure the question will matter. When a census taker asks ifa person is a citizen, they will just lie.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That was my first reaction as well, is this is obviously being done so that states with a lot of illegal immigrants will get more House representatives and more electoral college votes.

How is this anything other than trying to get foreigners to influence the outcome of elections?

originally posted by: SunnyDee
Not sure the question will matter. When a census taker asks ifa person is a citizen, they will just lie.

Except in the past millions of people have said they weren't a citizen on the census. It doesn't ask if you're an illegal immigrant, just if you're a citizen. If you say no, you could still be here legally.

Clinton 2000 census

However, the 2000 U.S. Census long-form questionnaire, which went out to an “average of one in six households,” included questions about citizenship.

Awkward....

originally posted by: SunnyDee
Not sure the question will matter. When a census taker asks ifa person is a citizen, they will just lie.

Its legal to not be a citizen silly..

and you can lie about every question including how many people occupy the household. I fail to see your point.

originally posted by: intrepid
Not to be picky, well yeah, to be picky

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

Let's go back to the infamous 3/5 compromise. Do you know why it was there?

I'll explain. The 3/5 compromise was there because the Southern states attempted to do something similar to what CA is trying to do here. They wanted to count their slaves for purposes of population for apportioning representation in the House, but at the same time, everyone knows those slaves would not actually be allowed to vote meaning the votes of the few would carry much greater political weight off the empty count.

This is the same sort of thing.

It was abhorrent then, and it's abhorrent now. They're playing political games.

Illegals can't vote and representation needs to reflect that, not be assigned based on a count that's empty.

a reply to: Blaine91555

No census enumerator will ever force themselves into your house. Ever. That's a criminal offense - after you're fired on the spot, the cops will take you immediately into custody. They give out these dinky little ID badges, but to be honest they look pretty easy to duplicate. Leave it to the government...

As for asking you several times,was there anything else on your property besides your house that could be considered a dwelling? A separate garage, a hunting cabin, a tent that you didn't take down regularly? Chances are they were actually asking about it, although the enumerator probably didn't know that themselves. We just got an address and no one seemed to care that we might see the wrong 'house.' Again, leave it to the government...

But, hey, it paid the bills for a few months and got me into the WIA college tuition program when I was laid off...

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

Morally, I agree with you: only citizens should be included for representation. But according to the Constitution, illegal aliens would still count as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation.

I'm on board for changing that wording, but until it changes... it's the Constitution.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
But we need to know who is and is not a citizen.

Well, on the face if it, sock-puppets, dead folks and non-citizens are not citizens.

But - apparently I'm wrong (and bigoted and racist and other Hillary words for deplorables)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko

Morally, I agree with you: only citizens should be included for representation. But according to the Constitution, illegal aliens would still count as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation.

I'm on board for changing that wording, but until it changes... it's the Constitution.

TheRedneck

Since 'illegal' means a criminal offence has been committed against the law of the United States, what constitutes an 'illegal alien'/ Do you have to be cunning enough to actually be on US soil, or can I put my hand up as a 3/5ths mongrel yank who should be prioritised like the other illegals?

so wait you get one rep for ever 350k people correct or is it 30k? and reps count tword electoral college votes as well correct? as well as effecting federal funds to a state.

just trying to wrap my brain around this say hypothetically ca had 3.5 million illegal aliens/non permenent resident citizens in country legally . how many reps would they loose? and how many electoral college votes would they possibly loose? math is not my strong point so trying to figure this out

a reply to: Sublimecraft

'Illegal alien' seems pretty much self-explanatory. An alien is someone who is not a citizen or native, and illegal means they have broken the law (which they do by coming here without going through immigration proceedings). So anyone who comes here illegally is an illegal alien.

It's old verbiage, but it's accurate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

True.

The 3/5 was left in the COTUS for a reason ... as a reminder so we don't go there again IMO. So, we need to do something to rectify this. There are no easy answers, but I don't think we can go all one way or the other.

But until then, you are correct. CA could get them counted under the 3/5 as residents without the right to vote.

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: SunnyDee
Not sure the question will matter. When a census taker asks ifa person is a citizen, they will just lie.

Its legal to not be a citizen silly..

and you can lie about every question including how many people occupy the household. I fail to see your point.

Then what is the point of a census if it is based on a truth system??

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually that not only happened to me, it happened to others where I lived in Idaho at that time. I did contact the police, I got nothing, not even asked for a name or description. Then it came up in the local news, which is how I know that they had an issue with census workers returning to commit burglaries. I suspect the one who started going through my house and looking at everything was one of them doing the stealing. I've searched but finding news articles from 2000 is not easy it seems. It did happen. I'd imagine you could understand my anger watching that guy just start opening doors, cupboards and looking in closets while informing me it was his right to do so.

If you remember back, during that particular census there was a lot of controversy over methods and the purpose of some very intrusive questions, that were removed prior to the next census.

Not to worry, I'm not maligning census workers, just those who got creative that year and used their job to case places for later robberies. I'm not anti-census either. That was just some census workers who got far to creative in their job description. They were told to walk through and count rooms that year and I heard a lot of complaining about that. Last time it was just someone at the door and the only problem was I had already done what they wanted and apparently lost track of which places they had already done.

No, no other buildings that would explain it. Each time it was like the first visit where I complied without hesitation. I did start to get a bit angry after the third time. Made we wonder how accurate the count was since they tried to have me do it over again multiple times.

More on topic though the 2000 instructions.


Not having that question would be outside the norm historically I'm sure.

a reply to: Blaine91555
I worked the 2010 Census in CA and we had that same issue. Only it wasn't Census workers, it was people pretending to be them because they knew we were out there. You have to be Live Scanned now and also FBI BG check in order to do Census work (at least in 2010) and they still did it.

Also as to the re-doing it, there are many other forms the census puts out outside the 10 year one. They are universally hated. So what they will do is send another group/s out with that form/s during the 10 year one, and lie saying it is THE Census, hoping people will think it is the "real" census. We had serious issues with this with people who did NOT want to do "the Census" after the 3 hours they spent doing it the first time. The real one is only 19 questions I think. The nasty ones are literally pages long. It's sickening what they ask if you are a conspiracy person at all it's a huge red flag lol.

This is the one ACS As a disclaimer I didn't read this current one, but the one from 2010 felt like the only thing they didn't ask you was how many times a day you picked your nose.

Seriously the most invasive crap I've ever seen. They came to my door with that baby and I politely(once) told them to leave. They got pushy as hell and I got really nasty. Lied and said they'd be back with police and I told them to read their fuc**n employee records, because I know that's BS because I had the same training they did (I worked 6 rounds-5 months of the 10 year Census instead of just one, So I had the full Census training). The 10 year ones are done by temp employees all the rest are perma employees, but if you worked more than the initial survey revolution of the main Census you got all the training a perma taker did.

a reply to: Lilroanie

It's a tough job and no doubt a bit dangerous for both the people at home and the census workers. I do have empathy for those doing it also.

I wonder how they are going to deal with one of the questions that was on the 2010 form.

6.What is Person 1’s sex? Mark ONE box. Male Female

That won't fly now I think.

The problem is they attach names to the data. Who trusts the government to protect it? Not me.

I've pulled this off topic here though. Clearly California's agenda is exactly what people suspect. To illegally obtain federal money. As California goes, so goes the nation they say. More laws, more regulations, more prisons and jails and more gangs. Not to mention how segregated California is and how its urban residents marginalize its rural residents.

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: SunnyDee
Not sure the question will matter. When a census taker asks ifa person is a citizen, they will just lie.

Its legal to not be a citizen silly..

and you can lie about every question including how many people occupy the household. I fail to see your point.

It is a crime to lie on the Federal Census.
18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

Also, if someone lied about being a citizen on the census when they are not, then later tried to become a citizen, they would be deported for lying on the census.