CalvinBall wrote:Citizenship question to be added back to census

On the one hand it makes sense that that would be a piece of information you would want to know if you're asking all that other demographic information. It seems odd it hasn't been asked in the recent rounds of the census, so have a hard time getting worked up about it getting added.

On the other hand, coming from this administration it is presumably being done in bad faith rather than a firm commitment to excellence in data collection, and you couldn't blame someone in the country illegally for not answering based on fears for how it would be used.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Citizenship question to be added back to census

On the one hand it makes sense that that would be a piece of information you would want to know if you're asking all that other demographic information. It seems odd it hasn't been asked in the recent rounds of the census, so have a hard time getting worked up about it getting added.

On the other hand, coming from this administration it is presumably being done in bad faith rather than a firm commitment to excellence in data collection, and you couldn't blame someone in the country illegally for not answering based on fears for how it would be used.

It hasn't been asked since 1950, so it's more than "recent rounds." The primary concern of the census is to get an accurate count of the population of the states and a nation as a whole to determine representation. Adding a citizenship question in this hyper-ICE enforcement atmosphere is exactly why they're asking this question and it will fuck up the Census' accuracy until it is removed (hopefully it is ruled unconstitutional, I haven't given that much thought and I don't know if there is an actual argument there, but that's for smarter legal minds).

slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Citizenship question to be added back to census

On the one hand it makes sense that that would be a piece of information you would want to know if you're asking all that other demographic information. It seems odd it hasn't been asked in the recent rounds of the census, so have a hard time getting worked up about it getting added.

On the other hand, coming from this administration it is presumably being done in bad faith rather than a firm commitment to excellence in data collection, and you couldn't blame someone in the country illegally for not answering based on fears for how it would be used.

It hasn't been asked since 1950, so it's more than "recent rounds." The primary concern of the census is to get an accurate count of the population of the states and a nation as a whole to determine representation. Adding a citizenship question in this hyper-ICE enforcement atmosphere is exactly why they're asking this question and it will fuck up the Census' accuracy until it is removed (hopefully it is ruled unconstitutional, I haven't given that much thought and I don't know if there is an actual argument there, but that's for smarter legal minds).

California is arguing that it will be to the detriment of the "actual enumeration" portion of the constitution. I'd assume that there would be a relatively way to show that it would through polling. I'm not sure what benefit it provides aside from being nice to know. I think they're going for the whole VOTER FRAUD angle which, come on.

They're also challenging on APA grounds, calling the question arbitrary and capricious.

CA is right. The reason is to understand the needs of the nation for planing. Planning means a lot more these days. I have to assume that the question, as JH indicates, makes the census a politic documents as the data would be used to alter infrastructure funding, redistrict, etc. Nothing good is likely behind the question.

FWIW, the good people of places like Nebraska are in need of immigrants of every stripe to participate in the agricultural economy, and all the funding for services to keep the heartland productive. Both working down on the farms and in the slaughterhouses. Employers literally cannot get people willing to take these jobs, you know like good old white bread Billy who "cannot find a job", but would never in his wildest dreams apply for a job in a slaughterhouse which is so below him. Its debatable if the employer is game to pay old billy, or if his side arrangement is a better deal.

pacino wrote:Christina Hartman's signatures are being challenged in PA10

She withdrew

Wow

Posters above (including JH), have made good points, so I won't just add my me too. However, I would like you to consider that put forth by Steve King as well:

Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa, an ardent opponent of immigration in the House, expressed support for the DOJ’s request, arguing that it would benefit his state: “In districts like Maxine Waters, who only needs about 40,000 votes to get reelected in her district and it takes me over 120,000 in mine because hers is loaded with illegals and mine only has a few.”

pacino wrote:

pacino wrote:Christina Hartman's signatures are being challenged in PA10

She withdrew

Wow

Refres me here

swishnicholson wrote:Posters above (including JH), have made good points, so I won't just add my me too. However, I would like you to consider that put forth by Steve King as well:

Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa, an ardent opponent of immigration in the House, expressed support for the DOJ’s request, arguing that it would benefit his state: “In districts like Maxine Waters, who only needs about 40,000 votes to get reelected in her district and it takes me over 120,000 in mine because hers is loaded with illegals and mine only has a few.”

I was going to formulate a more full response, but Steve King is a racist so I'm not going to think too hard about this. In 2016 (granted a Presidential election year) Maxine Water received ~167,000 votes and her opponent received ~52,500.

swishnicholson wrote:Posters above (including JH), have made good points, so I won't just add my me too. However, I would like you to consider that put forth by Steve King as well:

Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa, an ardent opponent of immigration in the House, expressed support for the DOJ’s request, arguing that it would benefit his state: “In districts like Maxine Waters, who only needs about 40,000 votes to get reelected in her district and it takes me over 120,000 in mine because hers is loaded with illegals and mine only has a few.”

Steve King's opponent got 142k votes in 2016 and didn't even break 40%. He needed like 185k votes to win re-election. He's so dumb he undersold his own point (though also mischaracterized Waters, who needed around 85k votes).

Some of the disparities by district are pretty wild. A lot of those Central Valley/Southern California districts (and some Hispanic heavy CDs in Texas) cast way less than half of the votes of some of the higher VEP CDs in their states. I doubt throwing the citizenship question on the form actually ends up having much of a material impact on the results of the census though or will change that much.

We haven't charged anyone with the federal offense of falsely filling out a census form since 1970. I'm sure that will make everyone feel better.

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:

pacino wrote:Christina Hartman's signatures are being challenged in PA10

She withdrew

Wow

Refres me here

She came from PA16 after the redistricting. She screwed up her petitions because she didn't know the area well enough and almost all of them are going to be thrown out so she is withdrawing so it isn't as embarrassing.

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:Posters above (including JH), have made good points, so I won't just add my me too. However, I would like you to consider that put forth by Steve King as well:

Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa, an ardent opponent of immigration in the House, expressed support for the DOJ’s request, arguing that it would benefit his state: “In districts like Maxine Waters, who only needs about 40,000 votes to get reelected in her district and it takes me over 120,000 in mine because hers is loaded with illegals and mine only has a few.”

Steve King's opponent got 142k votes in 2016 and didn't even break 40%. He needed like 185k votes to win re-election. He's so dumb he undersold his own point (though also mischaracterized Waters, who needed around 85k votes).

Some of the disparities by district are pretty wild. A lot of those Central Valley/Southern California districts (and some Hispanic heavy CDs in Texas) cast way less than half of the votes of some of the higher VEP CDs in their states. I doubt throwing the citizenship question on the form actually ends up having much of a material impact on the results of the census though or will change that much.

Right because President Gillibrand will abolish ICE.

Seriously. This stock market is ridiculous. moves 2-3 percent each and every day.

Some days there's a lot of winning, other days it is very tired from all the winning

Trump pressed the military to fund the wall since he got them all that money. WE LOVE THE TROOPS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/trump-p ... eport.html

thephan wrote:This rotates through because Rob Porter is reported to be on Trump's speed dial, and they talk often. He is a WH zombie.

More details:

President Trump has stayed in touch with Rob Porter, the former White House staff secretary who stepped down after allegations that he had abused his two former wives came to light, according to three people familiar with the conversations, and has told some advisers he hopes Mr. Porter returns to work in the West Wing.

Pretty gross

Mueller files that Gates and an "unnamed person" are linked to Russian intelligence in the Van Derr Zwann case

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Mueller files that Gates and an "unnamed person" are linked to Russian intelligence in the Van Derr Zwann case

Uh oh