Dear GOP: have you no sense of decency, at long last, have you no sense of decency
(This is, of course, a rhetorical question - the answer is obviously no, they have none)
Well, if the question is included, I know what my answer is going to be. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the number of non-citizens counted in this country suddenly skyrocketed.
Why make it tougher on Melania? I mean Mrs. “Einstein” Trump…
Gee, and here I thought the Census was all about counting the populace of the United States, not checking peoples’ papers. Silly me.
It is about counting the populace. That’s why the Republicans want to make non-citizens (especially those without papers) to respond to the census at all. As the story points out, they tend to reside disproportionately in large urban areas, and since Congressional representation is apportioned not on the number of actual citizens in a state, but the total number of residents of all statuses, if the non-citizen responders can be suppressed, then cities will lose representation in comparison to rural areas, which are already over-represented in the House thanks to gerrymandering and to the fact that states with small populations have more congressional reps per thousand residents than those with larger populations.
(For example, Wyoming, with a 2017 population of 579,315, has one representative in Congress. California, with a 2017 population of 39,536,653, has 53 representatives in Congress, or one per 745,974 people. If California had representatives in the same proportion that Wyoming has, they would have 68 representatives, or 15 more than they are currently allotted.)
The fight it about how the populace is counted. The last time the census was taken, there was a lot of discussion about using modern statistical analysis to adjust the raw counts to correct for the inevitable errors and biases that are introduced by a manual count, and which would help with populations (like homeless people) who tend to be badly undercounted and give, actually, a more accurate count. The Republicans wouldn’t hear of it.
Census population counts are also used in a lot of allocation formulas for federal funds, so in addition to having their fair share of Congressional representation diminished, states with proportionately high non-citizen residents would also have their fair share of many federal grants diminished if the census includes a question that would tend to suppress (by way of intimidation) participation by non-citizen populations.
Have also heard they want a change to 2020 census to count prison populations as residents of the prison locations rather than residents of their actual homes.
To me this is a GOP dream-come-true…in some ways. Increase the number of people but count the people who cannot vote in the location of the prison. I’m in a rural area that doesn’t offer much employment other than the service sector, and has a prison. To my eyes this is part of a red shift attempt just like gerrymandering, voter suppression, attempts to incarcerate a larger segment of the population (Jeff Sessions) and remove them from voter rolls but count them as residents.
This idea has been floated by white nationalists before so I’ll just paste a comment I saw at a similar discussion. Unfortunately I can’t find the original source but it seems likely Republicans would balk at a compromise like this since suppression of the franchise is their middle name (you used to have to squint to see it but that was awhile ago)
If we are going to add new questions to the census about citizenship, then I would propose reviving one that was asked in the 1870 census. The modern version would echo the 2nd section of the 14th Amendment and ask all citizens above the age of 18 whether their right to vote has ever been “denied . . . or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime.”
I intend to answer every citizenship-based question on the census with “Yes, and FUCK YOU DONALD TRUMP.”
Anyone remember the previous census, when republicans were threatening to shoot census employees for being from the gummint and asking too many intrusive questions?
Trump is not fundraising.He will not run for reelection.
He plans to pocket the money.
those cheap lawyers doesn’t come cheap !
Why doesn’t he just have his fundraising emails say:
Do you think Donald J Trump should be president for life?
If the email only gets sent to the GOP members of congress, he will get like 85-90% yes votes.