About that (and closer read the comments were about diplomacy (lack of it) and the unlikelihood that it would improve) … Trump is currently lashing out, at May and proving what the Ambassador said:
there is a second nasty-tweet if one click’s the twitter post - it is almost worth doing so to read some of the responses.
Back to the main point (Trump’s Census Comments) - impulsiveness and dimness make these situations (where he contradicts his people) all to common. It’s all part of the perpetual chaos that is the Trumpshitshow.
“Yet the Secretary did not rely on that rationale in his decisional memorandum,”
That is an “absurd” statement to make, to use DOJ language, since even Roberts stated that the Secretary, Commerce, and DOJ lied about the reason in the first place.
why is there the assumption that this will negatively affect population estimates in Democratic areas more than rural, presumably conservative areas?
I base my question on a thesis that the bulk of the undocumented populations live in more rural areas where agricultural employment provides them opportunities for employment that are generally not as available in more heavily populated areas.
I think of where my father grew in northern Iowa, there is a hog processing plant in the local area, I assume that many employed there may tend to be undocumented, because I see my cousins typically not taking those jobs. Or where I lived for a short while in Ohio, where the local nursery, a fairly well established local entity, was raided in the last year or so, and over 100 workers were found to be undocumented, it too is a rural county.
Since rural areas can be assumed to be more conservative in general, and you reduce the population by scaring potential respondents out of being counted, isn’t it likely that those areas will have a lower population, and thereby lose influence?
Could it be the assumption used to determine the benefit of adding a citizenship question thinks of the loses as orders of magnitude in difference, 100 in Sandusky, Ohio, means 1000 in San Francisco?
I think the new DOJ lawyers are for New York vs Commerce, not Kravitz vs Commerce, which is allowing new discovery on the Hoeffler revelations before the Maryland Federal Court.
We’re not just talking about undocumented people in my understanding. It also means people here legally-green card holders, work visas etc-people that tend live and work in larger democratic cities would not be counted in redistricting even though they pay takes and deserve representation.
Population wise, most immigrants, legal or not, live in large metropolitan areas, which, historically, usually vote Democratic. The reason Hoefflers’ information is so important is because the Republicans want to use it as a basis for redistricting using eligible voters as the determining factor, not population as a whole. (as we have always done)
To me the headline of the court decision was that 4 justices voted to allow the question despite insurmountable proof that the people who were requesting it had lied repeatedly about the reasoning for the question. That’s 4 justices saying we do not give a fuck about the facts, we are going to rule in favor of Republican goals like voter suppression and spurious redistricting as long as it favors Republicans. In the far bigger gerrymandering case that number jumped up to 5.
My newly acquired knowledge of the meanings of, “flood the zone” and “forum sliding” is really paying off. Agree that we here have to control the/our narrative.
the statement by the DoJ indicated that there were multiple cases where the lawyers would change…
“As will be reflected in filings tomorrow in the census-related cases, the Department of Justice is shifting these matters to a new team of Civil Division lawyers going forward,” DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement
Remember, Trump thinks that he lost the popular vote because millions of “illegals” voted for Hillary in california. So if you apportion representatives by citizenship, that “millions” fewer people in California, and probably 4-6 fewer representatives from CA.
I know, I know… GOP dominated states like Texas would be affected too… but Trump doesn’t think like that.
And Trump actually didn’t say “redistricting” and “states”, he said “Congress” and “districting”
So Francisco’s argument is that we should take the secretary entirely at his word even though the court has already ruled that the public record was created as part of a pretext. Gotcha.
Josh’s team mapped out the strategy well: it’s taxation without representation writ large. Count immigrants for dollars. Undercount them for district apportionment. None of that arrests the population decline of whites as a share of the electorate.
The plaintiffs did file a request for an order permanently enjoining the gov’t from putting the question on the census. They have a good chance to succeed on the merits.
In my usual obtuse way, that is what I am arguing also. 4 justices plus Roberts were fine with the fact that Ross, Commerce, and DOJ lied under oath. The 5th justice merely swept that under the rug when making his decision.
