Executive privilege

[UncleMark]

So Trump exerts executive privilege for documents related to the census citizenship question...

Seriously?

Now don't get me wrong, I understand the concept behind there being such a thing as executive privilege, but I would hope it would only be invoked in situations where the deliberations and communications are of grave importance to the national interest. A census question? Not sure that rises to that level.

But if you had something to hide...

 

[Standard Issue]

So Trump exerts executive privilege for documents related to the census citizenship question...

Seriously?

Now don't get me wrong, I understand the concept behind there being such a thing as executive privilege, but I would hope it would only be invoked in situations where the deliberations and communications are of grave importance to the national interest. A census question? Not sure that rises to that level.

But if you had something to hide...

I'm probably the only guy who isn't a trumpster that hopes he lives to be 150 years old.
Of course I'm hoping he spends the last 70+ in prison.

 

[hoot1]

The purpose of the census originally was to count all those living in the US. I can understand asking about citizenship status. However the downside of this is that non-citizens may avoid participating.

There are good arguments on both sides of this issue.

All in all, seems to me the administration should prevail on this one in spite of traditions to the contrary.

 

[toastedbread]

The purpose of the census originally was to count all those living in the US. I can understand asking about citizenship status. However the downside of this is that non-citizens may avoid participating.

There are good arguments on both sides of this issue.

All in all, seems to me the administration should prevail on this one in spite of traditions to the contrary.

I don't have a problem with it, but it should ask if permanent resident/citizen. Permanent residents are also entitled to representation imo.

 

[UncleMark]

I don't have a problem with it, but it should ask if permanent resident/citizen. Permanent residents are also entitled to representation imo.

All persons are entitled to representation, per the Constitution. Hell, even slaves got counted (albeit only 3/5 of them) and they weren't even considered persons.

 

[UncleMark]

The purpose of the census originally was to count all those living in the US. I can understand asking about citizenship status. However the downside of this is that non-citizens may avoid participating.

From all appearances, the citizenship question is being added for blatantly partisan reasons. The DoJ "request" that claims it is for aid in enforcing the 1965 Civil Rights Act is bogus, especially in light of the fact that the Supremes have invalidated the portion of that act that gave the Feds oversight in the area of voting rights. Not to mention that the DoJ "request" was solicited by Ross to give the Census Bureau cover.

The Supremes are scheduled to rule on this soon, so the question will be settled one way or the other. What's at issue is whether or not Ross lied to Congress, and if he did, at whose direction. There is nothing approaching the need for free and frank discussion and deliberations within the executive branch involved. Claiming executive privilege looks like a last ditch attempt to cover up what actually went on.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't mind the President claiming executive privilege, it is what presidents instinctively do. "How is your day, Mr President" followed by "I assert executive privilege". It is then up to the courts (or congress) to force the issue. I would think in this case Trump will lose as Obama lost in Fast and Furious.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The purpose of the census originally was to count all those living in the US. I can understand asking about citizenship status. However the downside of this is that non-citizens may avoid participating.

There are good arguments on both sides of this issue.

All in all, seems to me the administration should prevail on this one in spite of traditions to the contrary.

Why would a non-citizen avoid the census? I never understood that talking point.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why would a non-citizen avoid the census? I never understood that talking point.

Fear. The census is prohibited from sharing information but people from other countries don't necessarily trust* the government when the government says things like that. It was like my old IRS days. We were told to encourage people to list their real sources of income, if it was drug dealing, so be it. We did not share that information with law enforcement at all. Do you think most people believed that?

*Added on edit

 

[hoot1]

Why would a non-citizen avoid the census? I never understood that talking point.

Local officials such as those cited in this link firmly believe the census count will not be accurate as both illegal and legal non-citizens will avoid the census. So it probably is not just a talking point, but a reality.

The link in part offers the following,

But local officials say the rise of anti-immigrant rhetoric and increased immigration enforcement under the Trump administration — not to mention the last-minute addition of a controversial new citizenship question to the 2020 census form — have set the upcoming national census on a path to an undercount of noncitizens, especially those living in the country illegally.​

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I wonder if we want to weaponize the census. A smart member of the blue team may start a movement for members of the blue team to not answer the census in red states, or vice versa. There is a certain political advantage to doing that.

 

[hoot1]

This census issue should be part of the long, long, long overdue immigration reform.

 

[UncleMark]

Fear. The census is prohibited from sharing information but people from other countries don't necessarily trust* the government when the government says things like that. It was like my old IRS days. We were told to encourage people to list their real sources of income, if it was drug dealing, so be it. We did not share that information with law enforcement at all. Do you think most people believed that?

He knows all that. He's just being disingenuous, as he always is when he can't defend his party's position.

 

[cosmickid]

All in all, seems to me the administration should prevail on this one in spite of traditions to the contrary.

Can you explain what you mean? Are you saying that Trump should be allowed to use the sham reason for "Executive Priv" for his purely partisan motives here? Are you unaware of the documents that were recently discovered that basically expose exactly what the GOP is/was up to?

And since the recently revealed plan is to help the GOP wrestle control of the Legislative process, it's somewhat appropriate that the architect of the nefarious plot is a Pub from North Carolina. The Pubs there have basically established their own little fiefdom and managed to super gerrymander themselves into a veto proof body that is outside the electoral process...

"Newly revealed documents appeared to confirm Thursday what many critics had long suspected — that the Trump administration’s drive to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census began as a plan to bolster Republicans and to undercut Democrats in state legislatures and Congress.

Thomas Hofeller, a Republican expert on redistricting and gerrymandering, died last year in North Carolina. His daughter found documents on his computer hard drive urging the Commerce Department to change the census to ask all residents about whether they are citizens.

With this data, states could draw new election maps based on the number of eligible voters, not the total population. That “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” he wrote."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...nsus-republican-advantage-20190530-story.html

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Fear. The census is prohibited from sharing information but people from other countries don't necessarily trust* the government when the government says things like that. It was like my old IRS days. We were told to encourage people to list their real sources of income, if it was drug dealing, so be it. We did not share that information with law enforcement at all. Do you think most people believed that?

*Added on edit

I get that for illegals. But not for non-citizens. Should we even consider illegal residents when using census data? Many come and go depending jobs and families and have no particular ties.

There is the DACA issue, but they are protected.

 

[VanPastorMan]

I don't have a problem with it, but it should ask if permanent resident/citizen. Permanent residents are also entitled to representation imo.

So would illegals be considered permanent residents? How does that work exactly.?

 

[UncleMark]

So would illegals be considered permanent residents? How does that work exactly.?

Permanent residents are fully legal (think "green card") but are not naturalized citizens. My wife is a permanent resident. She has all the rights and protections of citizenship save for voting, serving on a jury, and for certain jobs.

"Illegals" are not permanent residents in the legal sense of the term. They are, however, considered "persons" for census purposes and are supposed to be counted.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Permanent residents are fully legal (think "green card") but are not naturalized citizens. My wife is a permanent resident. She has all the rights and protections of citizenship save for voting, serving on a jury, and for certain jobs.

"Illegals" are not permanent residents in the legal sense of the term. They are, however, considered "persons" for census purposes and are supposed to be counted.

What you just did...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I get that for illegals. But not for non-citizens. Should we even consider illegal residents when using census data? Many come and go depending jobs and families and have no particular ties.

There is the DACA issue, but they are protected.

You think legality matters? I heard stories that immigrants from eastern Europe used to be afraid because of how the government was during communism.

 

[Ladoga]

The purpose of the census originally was to count all those living in the US. I can understand asking about citizenship status. However the downside of this is that non-citizens may avoid participating.

There are good arguments on both sides of this issue.

All in all, seems to me the administration should prevail on this one in spite of traditions to the contrary.

That question or something equivalent (place of birth for example) has been asked of every named person since the 1830 Census. Since the 1850 Census (the first census where the name of every person was listed) the question has applied to every man, woman and child found in the USA. (Before 1850, the Census listed only the name of the head of household and counted other by age range, gender and race.)

 

[UncleMark]

That question or something equivalent (place of birth for example) has been asked of every named person since the 1830 Census. Since the 1850 Census (the first census where the name of every person was listed) the question has applied to every man, woman and child found in the USA. (Before 1850, the Census listed only the name of the head of household and counted other by age range, gender and race.)

Show me where:

https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questionnaire_Info.pdf

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You think legality matters? I heard stories that immigrants from eastern Europe used to be afraid because of how the government was during communism.

Most of the criticism of not counting illegals involves the consequences of under counts. I don’t get that either. I don’t think illegals should count for the electoral college. The distribution of benefits excuse doesn’t hold up well either. Medicaid is fee for service, food stamps is a qualification having nothing to do with the census, and education is based on school populations not the national census.

I don’t get your post either. If somebody comes to the USA because they are afraid of the authorities in their home country, then why should they be afraid of the authorities in their chosen country? They can always exercise a different choice.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Most of the criticism of not counting illegals involves the consequences of under counts. I don’t get that either. I don’t think illegals should count for the electoral college. The distribution of benefits excuse doesn’t hold up well either. Medicaid is fee for service, food stamps is a qualification having nothing to do with the census, and education is based on school populations not the national census.

I don’t get your post either. If somebody comes to the USA because they are afraid of the authorities in their home country, then why should they be afraid of the authorities in their chosen country? They can always exercise a different choice.

You don't think illegal aliens count as "persons?"

 

[UncleMark]

Most of the criticism of not counting illegals involves the consequences of under counts. I don’t get that either. I don’t think illegals should count for the electoral college.

Then you need to amend the Constitution.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You don't think illegal aliens count as "persons?"

No; but I recognize the argument. The constitution clearly did not intend all people. There was no such things as illegal immigrants at the time.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don’t get your post either. If somebody comes to the USA because they are afraid of the authorities in their home country, then why should they be afraid of the authorities in their chosen country? They can always exercise a different choice

It is survival mechanism, some snakes are poisonous so a fear of all snakes is pretty common.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No; but I recognize the argument. The constitution clearly did not intend all people. There was no such things as illegal immigrants at the time.

Well, the Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of persons, and slaves had far less rights than illegal aliens. So how much should we count illegals, then, considering the Constitution's silence on this point?

 

[hoot1]

Permanent residents are fully legal (think "green card") but are not naturalized citizens. My wife is a permanent resident. She has all the rights and protections of citizenship save for voting, serving on a jury, and for certain jobs.

"Illegals" are not permanent residents in the legal sense of the term. They are, however, considered "persons" for census purposes and are supposed to be counted.

Just nitpicking as green card holders aren't "permanent" in the strict sense of the term as under certain conduct they can loose their status.

Again I call for immigration reform as most of our current laws and regulations concerning immigration simply don't fit where the country is and what it needs in the future.

I call attention to this as terms such as "permanent", "illegal", and "legal" can be easily misunderstood and used as what CoH would refer to as a political talking point.

 

[Ladoga]

Show me where:

https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questionnaire_Info.pdf

I stand corrected. You picked 2010 which, along with 1840 are the only Censuses since 1820 not to ask that or a similiar question. I've never done any of my genealogical research involving the 2010 census. BTW, the tabulations of Censuses after 1940 are not publicly available yet.

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census-Bureaus-Birthplace-and-Citizenship-Questions-One-Table

 

[UncleMark]

Just nitpicking as green card holders aren't "permanent" in the strict sense of the term as under certain conduct they can loose their status.

You are correct. People usually obtain a work permit (green card) and are granted "conditional" permanent residency. Then they go through an additional process/filing to have the conditions removed. Owing to who I was responding to, I tried to dumb it down as much as I could.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Just nitpicking as green card holders aren't "permanent" in the strict sense of the term as under certain conduct they can loose their status.

Again I call for immigration reform as most of our current laws and regulations concerning immigration simply don't fit where the country is and what it needs in the future.

I call attention to this as terms such as "permanent", "illegal", and "legal" can be easily misunderstood and used as what CoH would refer to as a political talking point.

Although you are right to call attention to people misusing the term, I assume Mark is using the term in the technical sense, as the official label for green card holders in the US is "Lawful Permanent Residents."

 

[Ladoga]

Then you need to amend the Constitution.

Agree. Illegal immigrants should not be counted in apportioning state legislatures nor the Congress - if I had the decision to make.

 

[UncleMark]

I stand corrected. You picked 2010 which, along with 1840 are the only Censuses since 1820 not to ask that or a similiar question. I've never done any of my genealogical research involving the 2010 census. BTW, the tabulations of Censuses after 1940 are not publicly available yet.

https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Census-Bureaus-Birthplace-and-Citizenship-Questions-One-Table

Your table shows the citizenship or birthplace question is only asked of a small sampling of the surveys from 1960 to 2000. So you're still wrong with this:

Since the 1850 Census (the first census where the name of every person was listed) the question has applied to every man, woman and child found in the USA.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, the Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of persons, and slaves had far less rights than illegal aliens. So how much should we count illegals, then, considering the Constitution's silence on this point?

From a public policy standpoint, do you think it’s okay for, say, Michigan to lose representatives and EC votes to Texas or California because of counting those who shouldn’t be here at all?

 

[Ladoga]

HOLY SHIT.

Sit Down. No one called on you. The 2010 is not public and has no current genealogical value. I have never seen it with data filled in and neither has any member of the general public. But he gets his due. You don't.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sit Down. No one called on you. The 2010 is not public and has no current genealogical value. I have never seen it with data filled in and neither has any member of the general public. But he gets his due. You don't.

Back to normal, I see.

 

[hoot1]

Can you explain what you mean? Are you saying that Trump should be allowed to use the sham reason for "Executive Priv" for his purely partisan motives here? Are you unaware of the documents that were recently discovered that basically expose exactly what the GOP is/was up to?

And since the recently revealed plan is to help the GOP wrestle control of the Legislative process, it's somewhat appropriate that the architect of the nefarious plot is a Pub from North Carolina. The Pubs there have basically established their own little fiefdom and managed to super gerrymander themselves into a veto proof body that is outside the electoral process...

"Newly revealed documents appeared to confirm Thursday what many critics had long suspected — that the Trump administration’s drive to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census began as a plan to bolster Republicans and to undercut Democrats in state legislatures and Congress.

Thomas Hofeller, a Republican expert on redistricting and gerrymandering, died last year in North Carolina. His daughter found documents on his computer hard drive urging the Commerce Department to change the census to ask all residents about whether they are citizens.

With this data, states could draw new election maps based on the number of eligible voters, not the total population. That “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” he wrote."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...nsus-republican-advantage-20190530-story.html

Cos, you quote my post out of context and then ask what I meant.

Give me a break.

 

[glidresquirrel]

I'm probably the only guy who isn't a trumpster that hopes he lives to be 150 years old.
Of course I'm hoping he spends the last 70+ in prison.

For what? Because you don't like him? How do you feel about The Clinton Crime Machine?

 

[Standard Issue]

For what? Because you don't like him? How do you feel about The Clinton Crime Machine?

I could list things like campaign contribution violations, emoulluments violations, financial fraud and on and on. But I take it that you're not interested in current affairs.

As for the Clinton's, get them convicted and lock then up. But after thirty years you'd think the case against them would be air tight.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I'm probably the only guy who isn't a trumpster that hopes he lives to be 150 years old.
Of course I'm hoping he spends the last 70+ in prison.

For what? Because you don't like him? How do you feel about The Clinton Crime Machine?

Oh my. I love when we get someone that hops in occasionally and you can tell doesn’t even keep up with the news. Here’s a hint: Trump’s attorney is in jail. Trump is Individual 1. To start with. He also lied about his earnings to get bank loans. Clinton Crime Machine? Lmao...