It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The census counted EVERYONE as citizens!

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Well doesn't that beat all; in between all those nosy questions the census takers were asking, they forgot THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Are you a citizen?



US Census Counted Everyone as Citizens

I was one of the half-million people hired to work on the 2010 Census which cost $14.5 billion, more than three times the 2000 Census. The 2010 census cost about $47 for every man, woman, and child in America.

The Census asked every conceivable question but the obvious one: Are you a citizen?

This means that the census is now deliberately anti-Constitutional. If illegal aliens are counted in California, then California will be sure to get additional seats in Congress (despite the fact that many citizens have been leaving California over the past 10 years). The same is true of other states with large numbers of illegals.

Henry Mankow


Way to pad those hard-core liberal voting districts.

And, what the heck, 3 times more expensive that the last census. Was inflation really that bad over the past 10 years?


Edit for being a totally stupid idiot and forgetting to post the link AGAIN!!!



Will some nice mod please take away some of my hardly earned ATS points as punishment for my continued acts of stupidity. :bnghd:


[edit on 8/25/10 by FortAnthem]




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Why would the census ask if we're citizens. That's not what it's about. It's about how many people are residing here.
It didn't count ANYONE as citizens.


And yes, inflation has gotten that bad in the last ten years. Where have you been?

And do you have a link?

[edit on 8/25/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I think that the census has gotten out of hand way before 2010. With that being said, counting illegals (if they were), is wrong, because not only will this decide which resources go where, but also political power to include congressional districts, as you have stated.

With that being said, I don't think this is going to make or break this country. We are already up to our necks in tyranny and corruption. If it wasn't this silly census, then it would be something else to fudge the numbers and rob the American people of their Constitutional protections.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Why would the census ask if we're citizens. That's not what it's about. It's about how many people are residing here.
It didn't count ANYONE as citizens.



It bothers me that the census, which is used to properly apportion representation in Congress, includes non-citizens, and illegals in their numbers. No wonder so many liberal districts have "sanctuary" laws protecting illegals; they want to pad their numbers.

It seems they are using the illegals to game the system.



And do you have a link?



This is about the 5th thread in a row where I forgot to post the link in the OP.


I think my brain must've fallen out of my head or something...



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Many people would be less inclined to take the census if that question was there. The primary purpose of THIS census is to find out the population. Yeah there are illegals residing in America, but the census isn't about that.

^ with that thought ^


Whats the purpose of the census if it is not counting citizens like it should? It's not like a state should get more representatives because they counted illegals..

Something is screwed up here.

It seems to me that all they're doing is counting the population.
Is an elected state representative supposed to represent Illegals? I think not.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by BlubberyConspiracy]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
When I got the form in the mail, the first thing I noticed was all these questions, and nothing to do with US citizenship. Grrrrr


A couple of days ago, I had a knock on my door. I looked and saw a harmless looking gentleman standing there. So I decided to open the door.

"Hi, I'm from the census" blah blah blah.

I told him I sent in the form. He said oh there must have been a glitch in the information received or something. I said oh really, How can you not read the number 1? I explained to him I live alone, and am the only one who lives here.

He asked if I filled in all the the questions and I told him NO.

I answered "1" and that's all the information you need. He said "yeah" and asked if I filled my name out, and again I said NO. I told him there was a bar code on the form and the information was all in there. Ha.

he said thanks, and went along his way.

I bet they'll be back, in one way or another. I'm glad he was polite. I take no sh*t and have heard some census workers try the foot in the door routine, and harass you until hell freezes over.

Don't tread on me.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
When I sent in my Census form, I also only filled in the "Number of residents" line (but mine with a 3). I also got a visit from the census folks, this time a nice lady, and she asked why I didnt fill out my name and other info. When I responded that I didnt feel that it was pertinent, she thanked me for my time and was on her way.

I am glad she took the hint that I wasn't going to answer any more questions and didn't try the "foot in the door" tactic to get me to answer any more. Since I stand 6'4" and go just over 275 lbs. and the front door to my house is a 125 lbs. 3" thick slab of Teak wood! (she would of lost her foot.)

I try to be a nice feller, but I value my privacy, and would not stand for a tactic like that.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I didn't get a cenus form - I saw them in the neighborhood and they knocked on the door - I didn't answer as I didn't want them to upset my my dog, they don't carry biscuits.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Here we have another instance of an individual determining what they believe to be constitutional or not.

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.

Enumerate: vb 1 : to determine the number of : count 2 : list


Nowhere in the constitution does it specifically say 'citizens', it just says to count how many people live here. American citizens living overseas are specifically excluded, even though they can vote. Federal empoyees outside the US are counted however, military and civilian alike.

I can understand the logic behind your argument, but illegal immigrants don't vote. It would make for a good debate though.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 





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.


Article I, Section 2 of The Constitution for the United States of America

The Constitution does not make any demands that a distinction of citizenship be made when taking a census, and the unfortunate three-fifths clause only underscores this, particularly when the Dred Scot ruling is taken into account. The Dred Scot ruling was a Supreme Court decision that demurred in the matter of Mr. Scot because he was a black man not considered to be a citizen of the United States, and thereby the SCOTUS declared they had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Thus, Dred Scot could be counted as "three-fifths" of a person, but not counted as citizen of The United States.

There are many issues I have with the intrusiveness of the Census takers, but the issue of citizenship is not a Constitutional matter.

It is undeniably unfair to citizens, who are the only people who obtain the right to vote in The United States, and naturally those states with a higher proportion of non citizens, (or immigrants not possessing citizenship if you prefer), will obtain a higher proportion of Representatives in Congress. Of course, the Constitution does give Congress the right to proscribe legislation that mandates only citizens be counted, but this is problematic due to the rule of apportionment in regards to taxation for Congress. However, Congress historically avoids direct taxation as much as possible due to the complexity of apportionment regarding taxation.

The simple answer would be to ask the question regarding citizenship and apportion Representatives according to the number of citizens, and apportion any taxes levied directly according to the total count.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The simple answer would be to ask the question regarding citizenship and apportion Representatives according to the number of citizens, and apportion any taxes levied directly according to the total count.


And how would they determine whether or not the people were being truthful about their citizenship? They'd have to check our papers... How many people on this board would be willing to show their personal papers (BC, SS card, etc.) to a census worker? How would they respond if a stranger asked them to prove their citizenship? (Yes, I know many expect Obama to prove HIS citizenship to every single stranger in the US, but they're not going to be willing to fork over THEIR papers to a stranger. In their minds, our privacy rights apply to us, not to the President.)

Sorting out illegal immigration is NOT the purpose of the census and it's shouldn't be used as such. The immigration laws are not being enforced by the federal government. THAT is the problem with illegal immigration. The census is a totally different beast.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Methinks the article is full of crap.

See even to our Freeman friend here in this thread, they specifically did not ask if you were a citizen.

I wonder why that could be? What does the mind of a Freeman think about that?

Maybe it boils down to that Freeman ideology that you are a person and not a citizen because if you were a citizen you would be under contract to the government?

Hmmm.

Or maybe, just maybe, they were just trying to figure out how many people are in the country.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





And how would they determine whether or not the people were being truthful about their citizenship?


A simple signature from those claiming citizenship would be enough, particularly if such a signature was being made under penalty of perjury.




Sorting out illegal immigration is NOT the purpose of the census and it's shouldn't be used as such. The immigration laws are not being enforced by the federal government. THAT is the problem with illegal immigration. The census is a totally different beast.


Since you made this remark while responding to my post it is fairly assumed you are directing it towards me, and unfairly so. I have not at all made the census an issue of illegal immigration and merely spoke to the reality that apportionment of Representatives to Congress are decided by census takings. Since Representatives are elected by voters, there is a valid concern regarding the indiscriminate way in which a census is taken.

That said, regardless of who elects a Representative, they are a part of a legislative process that effects all people, citizen or not. However, the problem of states that have large quantities of immigrants not citizens versus those states who have less people and most of them are citizens reveals an inherent unfairness to the apportionment of Representatives for Congress. You make too many assumptions about other people on many issues, but in regards to immigration, your assumption that it is I who am attempting to make an issue of it ignores the fact that you are making an issue of it, not I.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


No wonder so many liberal districts have "sanctuary" laws protecting illegals; they want to pad their numbers.


PRECISELY this! You have hit the nail on the head, there. It's amazing that California is so bankrupt. With so many illegals there the state should be swimming in government money.

/Q



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You make too many assumptions about other people on many issues, but in regards to immigration, your assumption that it is I who am attempting to make an issue of it ignores the fact that you are making an issue of it, not I.


The only reason I quoted you is that you suggested that the census should ask about citizenship and I wanted to give my opinion on that. I made NO assumptions about you at all. I didn't assume that you "made an issue" of this. If anything, you made a boatload of assumptions about my post.

Please read it again without your preconceptions.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Already being discussed here: California Official's $800,000 Salary in City of 38,000 Triggers Protests.

With that being said, this is outragious, though what isn't these days? I have yet to find a story involving government that gives me the "warm and fuzzies".

--airspoon

[edit on 26-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Whats up with all this census BS anyway? Here in Canada they are changing the long form to short form , or what ever i mean it worked fine for that last 30 years or or so, but all of a sudden it needs to be " changed".....Someone higher above appears to be pulling the strings here and in the US and other countys too I would guess... But most of us here on ATS know that allready.....



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
This census thing sure puts some righty, constitutionalists, conservative, libertarian, tea bangers in a pickle, and I find it hilarious!

Some see it as an invasion of privacy, but want it to check citizenship.
Some see it as unlawful, but it's constitutionally mandated.
Some see it as big brother, but it provides proper representation.
Some see it as a FEMA camp ticket, but a 1040ez doesn't raise an eyebrow.

Like all their issues, they are full of more holes than a window screen.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
In California, if the Census were to go around asking households of Hispanics if they are U.S. Citizens, they would be lucky to not have the door slammed in their face. The illegal immigrants are very skiddish for obvious reasons and are hard enough to count without the citizenship question.

I agree, though, that if one of the primary reasons for the count is to determine electoral votes for each state, then it only makes sense that it would be crucial to know exactly who is eligible to vote in the first place.

Here's a bit of info (for FYI purposes only) about the Census if anyone is interested:

The Census has two separate questionnaires. The first one is the one that has about 10 questions (name, birthdate, # in household, ethnicity, etc.). Then there is whacked out 70+ question version that delves into your income, what time you leave for work, and various other personal tidbits that are none of the government's business.

The second version is the "long form" and is only sent out to selected areas targeting about 100,000 to 200,000 people in each area. It is not a questionnaire that the everyone in the country gets and I don't know how they select who gets one.

On the short questionnaire, the census worker can be required to attempt contact with you up to six times. Though it's mandated that you answer, you probably WON'T be hearing Census employees make comments that suggest you could face any penalties, because you WON'T. They do not enforce the law and they specifically tell the Census workers not to make such threats. You are free to answer only with the number in your household and nothing more, but you probably will be subjected to more visits from the Census trying to convince you to give up the info anyway.

HOWEVER, the other more intrusive long form questionnaire is handled differently. My understanding is that the Census workers who make home visits for these forms are not temporary employees from your local community, but actual full time Census employees. From what I've gathered, these Census workers can and DO imply threats about the Census taking action against those who refuse to answer the questions. They claim these detailed questions are needed, for example, to plan for highway construction in the case where commuter traffic has increased significantly--that sort of thing. Regardless of the reasons, the questionnaires are very personal and invasive.

I believe what they are doing is trying to converge these two questionnaires into one form for the next Census 10 years from now.

All I know is that Americans (at least the ones in my state) are getting really touchy about the government and all it's questions. We had several violent incidents involving Census workers being verbally threatened, having guns pointed at them, and some even being shot at. It's getting crazy out there.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Already being discussed here: California Official's $800,000 Salary in City of 38,000 Triggers Protests.


Huh, what?


I checked out that thread and it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the census.



Now my brain hurts...


Edit to add:


I gave you a S&F anyway.


Hey.......

Now it's starting to make sense.


[edit on 8/26/10 by FortAnthem]



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join