Census Dickery

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Census Dickery

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:10 pm UTC

So the 2020 census is going to have a question as to whether or not the person is a citizen, mostly so that illegal immigrants won't answer and thus won't be counted. My question is thus. From a constitutional perspective, not a moral one, should non-legal residents be counted for purposes of determining the number of representatives a state has? The constitution m, amendment 14 section 2, states that it's based on counting the number of whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed, but I don't know if non-legal residents are included in "whole number of persons".

Interestingly the section goes on to say that if adult non-criminal males have their voting rights restricted, the same restriction shall apply to the representation as a whole; ie, if you don't let black men vote you can't include them for getting representatives, but I've never heard of the Jim Crow states having fewer representatives as a result.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6276
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:15 pm UTC

It's going to discourage legal immigrants from returning it, not just illegal immigrants, as it's pretty obvious that the administration sees immigrants and minorities as the enemy, and will use anything in their power to suppress their rights or eject them from the country. Since the census lasts ten years, many of those immigrants will become citizens by the time the next one is held. The question serves no purpose, other than to discourage immigrants from filling it out.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby bantler » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:22 pm UTC

The census should NOT count illegal immigrants towards representation. That tally is intended for citizens only; not German tourists, not Russian diplomats, not dogs, cats or illegals.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6276
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

No taxation without representation, I say.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Chen » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:20 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:No taxation without representation, I say.


Seems like a much better way to conduct the census, at least for determining representatives. Base it on the people who file taxes. And frankly only let the people who file taxes vote.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6550
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Census Dickery

Postby ucim » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:27 pm UTC

The information is useful, but the (ethical) cost of getting it needs consideration. It's like the information Facebook collects is useful (to an individual member), but it is so easily used against them that it's best to not supply it. I no longer answer political (or any other telephone) polls. I ask who hired the pollster (to determine who I'm helping) and they tell me they can't say (for good reason), and the whole thing fails at that point.

Society runs on trust. This bears repeating, if only to cause people to stop and consider the thought.

Society runs on trust.

Destroy that trust and you destroy (a part of) society. This can give power to the other part of society.

Draw your own conclusions.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Census "Dickery"

Postby Ranbot » Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:15 pm UTC

A shame this discussion has to be under a title of "dickery" because you're pretty much guaranteed to have a dickish discussion when you start it that way.

For people who want to do some reading here are two news articles that do an OK summary of issues/sides:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/p ... trump.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 5bbc4c8d3d

The articles above discuss legislative redistricting and federal budget allocations to death because that's what politicians care about and they have the loudest megaphones, but that's just the tip of the ice burg. There is no other data source like the US Census, which is why private businesses (e.g. insurance, marketing, investment, growth projections, etc.), academic researchers, non-profits, and others rely heavily on US Census data in all sorts of evaluations and decisions. The US Census data is used so much that's worth every penny we spend on it (IMHO). A change that might reduce the accuracy of US Census has far more potential impacts than a legislative seat and should not be taken lightly.

My gut says including this question is a bad idea because it will depress responses and in turn the useful of the entire data set. However, I think adding the citizenship question may also generate some useful information for many who use US census data. It's also a question the US Census asked 50 years ago, so it's not unprecedented. What I want to know is how much will a citizenship status question depress response; and what, if any, impact does it have on the rest of the valuable data we get from the US Census? We really don't know. As I said above my gut says it's a bad idea, but I have no data to support it. I hate gut-based decision making. I would be willing to allow the citizenship question now to obtain the data about whether or not to include it again in the future.

ucim wrote:The information is useful, but the (ethical) cost of getting it needs consideration... Society runs on trust... Destroy that trust and you destroy (a part of) society...

I agree. But trust goes both ways and there's a significant portion of the population that doesn't trust that citizens/votes are being counted fairly, factually right or wrong matters less than what they believe. I'd rather go into a debate with those folks with facts on my side, or have facts to evaluate whether it's even worth arguing with them in the first place. (See above)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6550
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Census "Dickery"

Postby ucim » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:05 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:My gut says including this question is a bad idea because it will depress responses... [...] I would be willing to allow the citizenship question now to obtain the data about whether or not to include it again in the future.
It does more than decrease response - it gives Trump a road map for his deportation program.

Chen wrote:And frankly only let the people who file taxes vote.
...and they get votes in proportion to the amount of taxes they pay?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1670
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: Census Dickery

Postby ConMan » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:15 am UTC

A Census is more than just a dataset, it can be a political tool. The US Census was used back in the 1940s to locate Japanese residents who were put into camps; in the same era the head of the French Census deliberately sabotaged information on religious affiliation and in doing so is believed to have saved a large number of Jews from concentration camps. Many people criticised the Australian Bureau of Statistics for deciding to retain name and address information from the most recent Census for data linking purposes, citing privacy concerns despite the Bureau's insistence that they are doing everything within the scope of their legislation and never directly connecting the identifying information back to the actual data, and there were concerns that this backlash may have impacted on the quality of Census data.

While I do believe that the question is a valid one to ask and the Bureau of Census would act within their authority to prevent the data from being used for any kind of punitive measures against immigrants, it's still likely to have an impact, especially given the broader context of the current administration's attitude towards non-citizens. It is a politically charged question, and it's likely to have the effect of not just reducing Census response rates (which is bad, but can be managed), but of increasing the undercount of marginalised groups, who are already likely to be miscounted. One of Census's great powers is in providing fine-level detail about small subpopulations, so anything that affects how those groups respond to Census is a risk to that value.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: Census Dickery

Postby ThirdParty » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:38 am UTC

Since illegal immigrants are "persons", are not "Indians not taxed", and are not "citizens", it appears to me that they are supposed to be represented. The 14th Amendment clearly contemplates representation of state inhabitants who lack voting rights: for example, women and children.

In any case, it's worth remembering that the census is used for all kinds of things, not just representative apportionment. Infrastructure, policing, public health, etc. Asking questions that people will be afraid to answer has the potential to cause all sorts of screw-ups, not just electoral injustice.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Census "Dickery"

Postby Chen » Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:18 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Chen wrote:And frankly only let the people who file taxes vote.
...and they get votes in proportion to the amount of taxes they pay?



Note how I said file rather than pay. Now looking more into it, it appears some people don't actually need to even file their taxes so that doesn't really work in the system I proposed. I had assumed you needed to file regardless of income even without owing taxes. You'd need to make the filing mandatory before it worked. But it seems like it would be better than the optional census in terms of determining at least the number of people in an area with respect to voting districts and such. Clearly the census still has value in terms of determining the details of the demographics.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8263
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Zohar » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:00 pm UTC

The census determines federal funds granted to local towns. It determines voting districts. It determines local programs to help residents. Whether I am a documented or undocumented immigrant, I still pay taxes, I'm still represented by elected officials, and I'm still a person living here. To imply that an undocumented immigrant is not a person is heinous.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby ObsessoMom » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:47 pm UTC

Clearly this is a partisan attempt to decrease the number of congressional seats that left-leaning, immigrant-rich California and New York currently have.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Chen » Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:04 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:The census determines federal funds granted to local towns. It determines voting districts. It determines local programs to help residents. Whether I am a documented or undocumented immigrant, I still pay taxes, I'm still represented by elected officials, and I'm still a person living here. To imply that an undocumented immigrant is not a person is heinous.


How do undocumented immigrants pay income tax? Is there a way to pay that without a SIN? Or do companies just withhold taxes as usual, and then its on THEM to pay the government? Cause it seems like they'd just pocket that amount if there was no way of tracking it.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:07 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Clearly this is a partisan attempt to decrease the number of congressional seats that left-leaning, immigrant-rich California and New York currently have.


On the flip side, left-leaning, immigrant-rich California and New York are trying to increase their congressional seats by inflating their census numbers with non-legal residents. On the flip-flip side, Republicans are rigging their own electorates through Gerrymandering.

I'm reminded of the 3/5ths compromise. Should slaves have counted as full persons as part of the census for determining congressional representatives? All the arguments were just a smokescreen for whether the balance of power should have tipped more towards the South or the North. It was eventually agreed that slaves were worth 3/5 of a whole person for purposes of representation, but like all good compromises both sides thought they got shafted. From the North's perspective, why should people who aren't even allowed to vote be counted for the purposes of representation? From the South's perspective, why should their laborers be any less valuable in terms of the census; initially, only landowners could vote, so it's not like the North's poor laborers were voting either.

So again, should people who aren't legally in the country/state be counted for the purpose of determining representation in congress or not, and why?

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby ObsessoMom » Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:11 pm UTC

Set the representation in Congress question aside for a moment.

If the federal agency that collects population data deliberately does something to undermine the integrity of that data, the data becomes dangerously useless, and "facts" become whatever people want them to be.

A war on objective data is not a good thing, for many reasons.

How is your community going to plan for infrastructure projects IF IT DOESN'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THOSE PROJECTS NEED TO SERVE? When a sewage system is inadequate for the actual number of people using that system, the resulting sanitation problems will not just sicken the non-citizens. When a transportation system is inadequate for the actual number of people using that system, the resulting gridlock will not just affect the non-citizens. Etc., etc., etc.

[Edited for smoother grammar]
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:35 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8263
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Zohar » Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:16 pm UTC

Chen wrote:How do undocumented immigrants pay income tax? Is there a way to pay that without a SIN? Or do companies just withhold taxes as usual, and then its on THEM to pay the government? Cause it seems like they'd just pocket that amount if there was no way of tracking it.

Undocumented immigrants with a high school education end up paying a lot more in taxes to the government than they're taking away from it,, since they're not eligible for benefits. In many regards it's actually beneficial for the government to keep them undocumented for this very reason.
You can Google "how do undocumented immigrants pay taxes" to see more about the logistics of it. The short answer is the government doesn't often refuse money.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:28 pm UTC

Yes and no. While illegal immigrants don't directly collect from social services, they indirectly cost the local communities through the use of schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure. Police too, although much less than the local population. At the same time, they'd probably contribute more taxes if they weren't barred from many professions or careers due to legal status, so saying "we let them stay because they don't contribute enough" runs the risk of being a circular argument...

Humans are not cheap.

Mutex
Posts: 1380
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Mutex » Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:45 pm UTC

But citizens also use those services, so it's a moot point.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8263
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Zohar » Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:48 pm UTC

The main cost involved is public school - they can't collect welfare, social security, SNAP, etc. Communities with immigrants generally have lower crime rates so police cost isn't an issue. In any case, the point remain that an accurate tally is required. If there's a higher cost for infrastructure and hospitals, won't we need to know how many people are being served to understand how much funding to provide?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:But citizens also use those services, so it's a moot point.


Hardly moot.

Let's say you have a fabricator that can just poof people into existence. But it's not a perfect device; you don't get to poof in a million clones of Feynman, it's random and you could get a Vilfredo Pareto or a Maria Sklodowska, or another Charles Manson. At the same time, each human has a cost on society, in the form of education and health and so on. So does it make sense to pump out the humans? That depends on whether the expected value of the humans produced by the machine is greater than the expected cost.

Further complicating this is that even if the expected values are the same as the local citizens, there are exponentially increasing costs to factor in. While you can almost always build more bridges, factories and hospitals, you can't build more derricks and farms and mines. If your machine instead of poofing new people it just makes an identical copy of every citizen, it would not result in a wash. Counter to this, however, is that having double the scientists and artists would result in somewhere around twice the speed of research and twice as much artwork, things that are obviously not limited resources, so it's entirely possible that even with half as much farmland and bauxite to go around you end up with more food and cellphones per person than before. It's... complicated, obviously.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Ranbot » Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:20 pm UTC

Chen wrote:How do undocumented immigrants pay income tax? ....Or do companies just withhold taxes as usual, and then its on THEM to pay the government? Cause it seems like they'd just pocket that amount if there was no way of tracking it.

I can't speak to what employers do with paychecks and tax withholdings. But, don't forget there are many taxes besides income tax that are unavoidable when you live in a place. For example, state and local sales taxes or any tax on specific good or service (e.g. alcohol, restaurants, gasoline, etc.) People need housing, so immigrants usually pay local property taxes indirectly through their rent. Some illegal immigrants buy their own homes through formal bank loans or with help a trusted legal citizen who signs paperwork and pay the annual property taxes. There are lots of hidden taxes paid by businesses during production and distribution of products before reaching a store shelves for customers, which includes illegal immigrants. So, they are paying some taxes and certainly participating in the local economy. Also as stated before there are many public services illegal immigrants don't use, but some public services they do use.

I admit that I'm not equipped with enough facts and knowledge of the overall impact of taxes illegal immigrants do pay, the public services they use, and their participation in the economy to make any definitive conclusions, other than I know it's complicated and the answer will not be black and white.

cphite
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby cphite » Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:36 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So the 2020 census is going to have a question as to whether or not the person is a citizen, mostly so that illegal immigrants won't answer and thus won't be counted. My question is thus. From a constitutional perspective, not a moral one, should non-legal residents be counted for purposes of determining the number of representatives a state has? The constitution m, amendment 14 section 2, states that it's based on counting the number of whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed, but I don't know if non-legal residents are included in "whole number of persons".

Interestingly the section goes on to say that if adult non-criminal males have their voting rights restricted, the same restriction shall apply to the representation as a whole; ie, if you don't let black men vote you can't include them for getting representatives, but I've never heard of the Jim Crow states having fewer representatives as a result.


I don't believe the question should be on there... the legal purpose of the census is to count the number of people living in an area, not to determine the citizenship or any other legal status of those people. Anything that would discourage people from answering defeats the purpose.

Besides, the yearly American Community Survey has been collecting citizenship status since 2005, and the long form of the census has included it as recently as 2000; so even if they did legitimately want citizenship metrics for the purpose of enforcing the Voting Rights Act, as they claim, they already have a source for that data.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Chen » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:34 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:The main cost involved is public school - they can't collect welfare, social security, SNAP, etc. Communities with immigrants generally have lower crime rates so police cost isn't an issue. In any case, the point remain that an accurate tally is required. If there's a higher cost for infrastructure and hospitals, won't we need to know how many people are being served to understand how much funding to provide?


From: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-b ... dollars-go

It seems about 33% of the stuff the Federal government uses taxes for are usable by undocumented immigrants. I imagine a state breakdown is skewed more the other way since the two biggest things were Social Security and Medicare which aren't things the states spend on (AFAIK) but I imagine that depends on the state and I couldn't find any solid data during my cursory search.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:36 pm UTC

Medicare is funded 50% by federal government and it's up to the states to decide on the remaining 50%, e.g., 25% county and 25% state, all state, etc.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8263
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Zohar » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:43 pm UTC

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get from your post, Chen.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Ranbot » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:24 pm UTC

Question... Can US Census respondents leave the citizenship question blank?

I've read in a few places there's an often cited law that requires responding to the US census [which hasn't been enforced since the 1970s], but I don't see if that includes not responding to parts of the census. The US census allows people to not respond to questions about their religion, so seems to be some flexibility. If a large enough number of people to leave the question blank in protest, regardless of one's actual citizenship status, that would make data inconclusive and not suitable for redistricting...

ucim wrote:It does more than decrease response - it gives Trump a road map for his deportation program.

...or potential future deportation programs.

If known bad data is used to support redistricting or other politically-motivated policies, that's very easy to challenge in courts.


Also, related to deportation concerns, I just learned the US Census has a "72 year rule" where they cannot share personal identifying information until 72 years after the census. So, there are some protections that personal identifying data collected in the US Census can't be used against people.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby bantler » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:30 pm UTC

cphite wrote:I don't believe the question should be on there... the legal purpose of the census is to count the number of people living in an area, not to determine the citizenship or any other legal status of those people. Anything that would discourage people from answering defeats the purpose.


It does no good to feel squishy about questions that may offend.
Personal questions that may be illegal and discriminatory on an employment application (age, race, religion, gender) are acceptable on the census.
The census is more than just a head count.

Oddly enough citizenship IS a legal question on employment forms.

Chen
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Chen » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:50 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get from your post, Chen.


That your tax dollars go to fair number of things that documented or undocumented people can use. The majority of your taxes do in fact go to things that undocumented people cannot use (social security, medicare). The taxes that are difficult for undocumented people to pay (or that they don't pay) would presumably be income taxes. Sales taxes, tolls etc we can assume are all paid.

So the question becomes if they don't pay income tax, are they still providing more than they cost? I can't find a good number on the distribution of types of taxes people pay but that would be the number you'd want to see to determine that. From the numbers I posted before if income taxes tend to be 67% or more of the taxes people pay, then they're probably not breaking even if they aren't paying income tax.

Now if they ARE paying income tax, then yes they clearly are providing more than they use (probably by far).

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:54 pm UTC

But illegal immigrants don't pay in to social security and medicare to begin with, at least not without committing identity theft.

iamspen
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby iamspen » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But illegal immigrants don't pay in to social security and medicare to begin with, at least not without committing identity theft.


[citation needed]

In every real-world example I've seen (and I've seen plenty; I was head greenskeeper at a golf course for a while, my guys were mostly seasonal and mostly Latino, often undocumented), income taxes are still withheld from their paychecks. The caveat is they don't get tax returns. They tend to sneak around that a little bit by claiming like 17 dependents, but they're still having money withheld from their paychecks, and you can bet they're not filing tax forms in April to claim refund checks.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8263
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Zohar » Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:00 pm UTC

There was a recent-ish episode of This American Life where they talked with scientists from The Urban institute on exactly this. I think they ended up determining an undocumented immigrant with a high school education ends up costing ~$20K throughout their entire life to the country. A citizen with a similar level of education costs multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. College-educated undocumented immigrants pay more to the country than they take due to their high salaries.

Here's the link to the relevant bit. Six minute audio clip.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:39 pm UTC

So... make it easier for college educated immigrants to immigrate, while restricting uneducated workers?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8263
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Zohar » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:12 pm UTC

No.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3654
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Census Dickery

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:20 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So... make it easier for college educated immigrants to immigrate, while restricting uneducated workers?
Maybe send all immigrants to college? (You could easily say that if native-borns don't end up competitively educated, there's something else broken, but not immigration.)

j/k/2

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Census Dickery

Postby pogrmman » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:32 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But illegal immigrants don't pay in to social security and medicare to begin with, at least not without committing identity theft.


You can get a tax identification number regardless of your citizenship status (a few of my friends at school from other countries have these). Social Security estimates that undocumented immigrants contribute in excess of $10 billion a year.

With my reading of the 14th amendment, it evens like representation should be based upon those residents who pay tax (because of the “excluding Indians not taxed” clause). So, citizenship shouldn’t matter.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Census Dickery

Postby natraj » Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:31 am UTC

^^ yup, plenty of undocumented immigrants pay income tax using individual taxpayer identification numbers. there's almost zero Common Talking Points used to bludgeon people with about "illegal immigrants" that are not in fact nonsense and undocumented immigrants being leeches who don't pay taxes and drain social services is high up on the list.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6534
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:46 am UTC

Ranbot wrote:Question... Can US Census respondents leave the citizenship question blank?

I've read in a few places there's an often cited law that requires responding to the US census [which hasn't been enforced since the 1970s], but I don't see if that includes not responding to parts of the census. The US census allows people to not respond to questions about their religion, so seems to be some flexibility. If a large enough number of people to leave the question blank in protest, regardless of one's actual citizenship status, that would make data inconclusive and not suitable for redistricting...

ucim wrote:It does more than decrease response - it gives Trump a road map for his deportation program.

...or potential future deportation programs.

If known bad data is used to support redistricting or other politically-motivated policies, that's very easy to challenge in courts.


Also, related to deportation concerns, I just learned the US Census has a "72 year rule" where they cannot share personal identifying information until 72 years after the census. So, there are some protections that personal identifying data collected in the US Census can't be used against people.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ercounted/
Quick note, if the Census gets it wrong, the Supreme Court says too bad. You're stuck with the data the Census returns, and you HAVE to use it to make Census decisions, like apportionment.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26258
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Census Dickery

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:48 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So the 2020 census is going to have a question as to whether or not the person is a citizen, mostly so that illegal immigrants won't answer and thus won't be counted. My question is thus. From a constitutional perspective, not a moral one, should non-legal residents be counted for purposes of determining the number of representatives a state has? The constitution m, amendment 14 section 2, states that it's based on counting the number of whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed, but I don't know if non-legal residents are included in "whole number of persons".
i'm skipping everything in the thread because...

The Constitution is actually really clear on that.

If it means Citizens, it says Citizens. If it means person, it says Person. All Citizens are Persons, but not all Persons are Citizens. Both are distinct terms with different legal definitions, but the main takeaway is that a person is just some schmuck while a citizen votes.

Which makes the Constituion neat in that visitors are pretty much protected by the same laws and have very similar rights to citizens - such as the fifth and sixth amendments.

If you believe otherwise, please find me the Supreme Court case where Person is defined in such a way as to exclude categorization based on citizenship.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6534
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Census Dickery

Postby sardia » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:02 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:So the 2020 census is going to have a question as to whether or not the person is a citizen, mostly so that illegal immigrants won't answer and thus won't be counted. My question is thus. From a constitutional perspective, not a moral one, should non-legal residents be counted for purposes of determining the number of representatives a state has? The constitution m, amendment 14 section 2, states that it's based on counting the number of whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed, but I don't know if non-legal residents are included in "whole number of persons".
i'm skipping everything in the thread because...

The Constitution is actually really clear on that.

If it means Citizens, it says Citizens. If it means person, it says Person. All Citizens are Persons, but not all Persons are Citizens. Both are distinct terms with different legal definitions, but the main takeaway is that a person is just some schmuck while a citizen votes.

Which makes the Constituion neat in that visitors are pretty much protected by the same laws and have very similar rights to citizens - such as the fifth and sixth amendments.

If you believe otherwise, please find me the Supreme Court case where Person is defined in such a way as to exclude categorization based on citizenship.

What about the Supreme Court and it's final say on what the law means? Like SCOTUS only recently changed the second amendment to include individual right to have guns. What I'm saying is that the Constitution means anything we want it to say*. So if it comes up to a dispute, then SCOTUS could 5v4 agree that noncitizens don't count for shit, by overturning a bunch of stuff. Without a solid majority in Congress to counter with a passed law, it'll be enforced.
*Defined as anything a combination of congress, courts, and executive branch can agree/loggerhead disagree together.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests