Should the citizenship question be put on the Census?

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, and here is one excerpt:

Unlike many of those who push for the question, I would like to boost the flow of legal immigration by a factor or two or three. Nonetheless, are we supposed to let foreigners in (which I favor), and give them a rapid path to citizenship (which I also favor), but somehow we are not allowed to ask them if they are citizens? To me this boggles the mind.

The real point is that the Democratic Party has talked itself into an untenable and indeed politically losing rhetorical stance on immigration (did you watch the debates? decriminalize illegal migration? health care benefits for illegal immigrants?), and the Census battle is another example of that.  It is no surprise that Trump wishes to keep it alive as a political issue:

Do you really wish for your view to be so closely affiliated with the attitude that citizenship is a thing to hide? I would be embarrassed if my own political strategy implied that I take a firm view — backed by strong moralizing — that we not ask individuals about their citizenship on the Census form. I would think somehow I was, if only in the longer run, making a huge political blunder to so rest the fate of my party on insisting on not asking people about their citizenship.

Not asking about citizenship seems to signify an attitude toward immigrants something like this: Get them in and across the border, their status may be mixed and their existence may be furtive, and let’s not talk too openly about what is going on, and later we will try to get all of them citizenship. Given the current disagreement between the two parties on immigration questions, that may well be the only way of getting more immigrants into the U.S., which I hold to be a desirable goal. But that is a dangerous choice of political turf, and it may not help the pro-immigration cause in the longer run.

Finally:

Countries that do let in especially high percentages of legal immigrants, such as Canada and Australia, take pretty tough stances in controlling their borders. Both of those countries ask about citizenship on their censuses. When citizens feel in control of the process, they may be more generous in terms of opening the border.

If you can’t ask about citizenship on your census, as indeed Canada and Australia do, it is a sign that your broader approach to immigration is broken.  I know this is a hard one to back out of, but if your response is to attack the motives of the Republicans, or simply reiterate the technocratic value of a more accurate Census, it is a sign of not yet being “woke” on this issue.  America desperately needs more legal immigration.

Comments

This one does not even come close to passing your ideological Turing test. Sad.

While we are at it this question needs to be on the Census too:

"Are you for or against the impeachment of Donald Trump for his numerous high crimes and misdemeanors including violating the emoluments clause of the US Constitution?"

If you can't even ask questions about impeachment then that is a sign that your Constitution is barely even read or respected. If your response is to attack the motives of the Democrats, it is a sign of not yet being 'woke' on this issue. America desperately needs more sanity in the White House.

I'm so old. I remember when Democrats fought tooth and nail to exclude Vietnamese refugees because they might vote Republican.

Open borders is one solution to the greatest Constitutional crisis of out our time: the possibility a Republican could be elected President.

And I am old enough to remember Republican presidents welcoming hundreds of thousands of refugees, like Ford did.

Things do change, don't they? Must be taxing to have to decide whether Ford or Trump is the real RINO.

Though what must be really taxing is explaining why Carter also allowed the Mariel boatlift, even though Cuban-Americas were known as staunch anti-communists most likely to vote Republican.

"hundreds of thousands" might be a tad different than 10s of millions.

Of course there is a difference between 100,000 and 10 million.

However, it is still smaller than the difference between 10 million and 10s of millions, which is a fantasy number when applied to illegal migrants. As noted here, when pointing out that the Yale study of illegal immigration is simply not accurate - 'In this commentary, we explain that such an estimate for 2000 is implausible, as it suggests that the 2000 Census undercounted the unauthorized immigrant population by at least 42% in the 2000 Census, and it is misaligned with other demographic data. Fazel-Zarandi, Feinstein and Kaplan’s model produces estimates that have a 10 million-person range in 2016, far too wide to be useful for public policy purposes; their estimates are not benchmarked against any external data sources; and their model appears to be driven by assumptions about return migration of unauthorized immigrants during the 1990s. Using emigration rates from the binational Mexican Migration Project survey for the illegal border-crosser portion of the unauthorized population, we generate a 2000 unauthorized population estimate of 8.2 million—slightly below Pew and DHS’s estimates—without changing other assumptions in the model.' https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204199

The amusing thing is that even those who want to restrict immigration consider that Yale study delusional, as can be read here - https://www.lifezette.com/2018/09/both-sides-of-immigration-debate-doubt-bombshell-yale-study/

What's delusional is that someone would believe that the long time estimate of 11 million illegal immigrants would stay the same for years while we document a half a million new ones per year.

Honestly, read the links before you embarrass yourself. For example, do you think that the children would not be noticed? As noted by Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute - “Five million more illegal immigrants should show up in the birth rate,” he said. “There should be more kids in school than there are … That many people just can’t hide. It would be almost as unbelievable as somebody arguing that there are none.”

The reason why migrant tends to be accurate as a term is that many of the people crossing the border for work return home. Much like the undocumented Irish migrants who used to be quite common in the construction industries of several major American cities until 2001. They would come, work, and go home - counting them as a total who stayed in the U.S. would be laughably incorrect.

There are roughly 10 million illegal migrants in the U.S. - there are not 1 million, nor are there 19 million.

Of course, this guy would probably believe what he wants to believe, wouldn't he? 'Spencer Raley, a research associate at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said it is reasonable to conclude that hard-to-count illegal immigrants exceed common estimates. But he added that 22 million seems like a stretch.

“It gives credence to the idea that we’re underestimated it,” said Raley, whose organization favors lower immigration levels. “I don’t know that I agree with their methodology.”

Raley noted that the high and low ends of the Yale study vary by 13 million people.' Talk about precision, right?

Respond

Add Comment

The border goes both ways: people leave as well as arrive.

Instead of arguing over surveys and methods we could just ask the question during the census and get the answer.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't remember that. I do remember straight up racist opposition to a "little Saigon" in Orange County.

Of course it should be on the census. The reason the left doesn't want it there is they are afraid it will become public knowledge that 30 million illegals are living here on our dime. Also it is part of the scam to give certain states greater representation in congress based on their huge illegal populations. The illegal and legal immigrants are your replacement voters and that is who the elected politicians represent not you.

I don't know that it has come up on this page, but "people who know" assure Tyler on Twitter that better quality data is already available.

Respond

Add Comment

As noted above, with links, the idea of something that is delusional will become public knowledge only happens among those with no interest in facts.

Respond

Add Comment

The reason the left doesn't want it there is they are afraid it will become public knowledge that 30 million illegals are living here on our dime.

Bullshit. It's the right that doesn't want an accurate count. The Democrats are fighting to avoid an undercount, by insisting that we rely on more accurate methods to count non-citizens.

The whole effort to add the question is an act of monumental dishonesty aimed at distorting our political outcomes.

That Tyler can't accept this simple reality without some too-clever-by-half rationalization is to his great discredit.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Does Tyler also want to add other questions to the census that lower quality info than we can get from other sources already? Because that is that the citizenship question does. Also, it is 100% politically motivated.

Totally incoherent.

That *would produce* lower quality info

Your simplistic philosophy of "population or perish" seems wholly indifferent to whether your large quotas are filled by people smugglers or by legal and diverse aspirants who have been merit-selected in a competitive process.

Every developed country except USA sees a world of difference between these two categories.

Well, not every country, depending on how you view the EU, where every EU citizen is able to live in any other EU country, without having been merit-selected in a competitive process. That is. someone from Bulgaria is entitled to live in Portugal, for example.

Freedom of movement in the European unionis technically contingent on paid employment, so it is a "merit selected process" in a sense, if in rather a weak form that permits the mass migration of unskilled labourers.

Though because it is combined with an open travel visa system, it is in practice retroactive and defacto seldom enforced.

Technically you could still describe it as "merit" based however, just a rather weak form of "merit".

'Freedom of movement in the European union is technically contingent on paid employment'

That has not been correct for decades - 'The concept of the free movement of persons has changed in meaning since its inception. The first provisions on the subject, in the 1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1.1.1, 2.1.5 and 2.1.4), covered the free movement of workers and freedom of establishment, and thus individuals as employees or service providers. The Treaty of Maastricht introduced the notion of EU citizenship to be enjoyed automatically by every national of a Member State. It is this EU citizenship that underpins the right of persons to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The Lisbon Treaty confirmed this right, which is also included in the general provisions on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.' http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons What is true is this - 'For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay.'

'Technically you could still describe it as "merit" based however, just a rather weak form of "merit".'

Well, if merit means an EU citizen does not the right to become a public burden in another EU nation, sure.

Yes, the independently wealthy and pensioners (the two classes of people who, for practical purposes, if unemployed would be able to subsist without public charity) are free to move too. There are still conditions, however, so closer to "merit" than "large quotas filled by people smugglers".

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If you intend to live in another country within the EU for more than 3 months, you need to apply for residency. Depending on the country, this means you must show you have a scholarship, job, etc.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Perhaps the resistance to adding this question to the census is politically motivated also. Just a thought.

But one makes the census more accurate, one less so.

Therefore, one is the side of (more) truth.

The Census with the question obtains useful information. However, it's information you would rather see suppressed. Ergo, you are going with an excuse to avoid addressing the issue.

Do you have any evidence that the Census performed in either Australia or Canada are more inaccurate than the US census?

I have a Class 2 position. Experts and field studies agree.

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/22/new-research-shows-just-how-badly-citizenship-question-would-hurt-census/

Lulz. No politically motivated reasoning there!

Isn't a field investigation the opposite of armchair motivated reasoning?

It always get me when people oppose evidence based policy, because the evidence gave them the wrong answer.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The Census with the question obtains useful information.

No. It doesn't.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

'Nonetheless, are we supposed to let foreigners in ... but somehow we are not allowed to ask them if they are citizens'

Well, then comes the nest step of course, which involves the idea of drawing congressional districts using citizen voting-age population. Which is kind of interesting - representation is apportioned by total population, but the districts themselves can be drawn in a fashion that ignores total population.

'but if your response is to attack the motives of the Republicans'

As the court cases concerning this wend their way, I'm sure that there will be much more discussion about what Thomas Hofeller has written on the subject, and just how much lying has already occurred on the part of the adminstration in front of federal courts. Such publication of his correspondence would provide the sort of accurate information to answer some basic questions about this rather embarrassing debacle (hint - the citizenship question is primarily about redistricting for partisan advantage, regardless of the contrivances or excuses people continue to proffer).

'probably I cannot convince you that it’s a good idea'

That is not your job anyways. These days, your job seems to involve putting words in other people's mouths to frame narratives, like this - 'Do you really wish for your view to be so closely affiliated with the attitude that citizenship is a thing to hide?' After all, there is an actual paper trail explaining why the reasons for that question appearing now were hidden, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

Or is this merely another example of the great forgetting that marks the Trump era?

I would go further, and base the number of representatives a state has in the House of Representatives on an average of the number of people who voted in the last few elections in that state, rather than on the census. This would mean every state has a strong incentive to get out the vote. Imagine if the parties worked together on this?

Or maybe just count the entire population as best as possible in accordance with the constitution right?

That creates an incentive for all states to count everybody in their state, which is the expressed purpose of the census, and creates extremely valuable unbiased public information.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Here and on Twitter, Tyler focuses on the Democratic party, which is currently not in power, and has no ability to drive policy, and *their* need to change.

I find that odd.

All those Trump Democrats would not have voted for him if the Democrats had a reasonable stand on the issue.

Didn't Pelosi and Schumer dig in their heels when presented with proposals to sort out some of the mess? Iirc Trump had on offer more than what Obama had pushed for.

Trump made the rapist speech and then went all-in on The Wall, a plan so stupid Republicans wouldn't even fund it.

I can understand why you'd forget that, but is Tyler really in the same place?

Also, remember the last serious attempt at reform. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 was not really blocked by "woke" Democrats, was it?

The people saw right through that 2006 amnesty scam. They knew they got burned in 1986 with Simpson-Mazzoli and they weren't going to get snookered again. The government, including the Congress, the judiciary, and the executive branches need to establish credibility by enforcing the law.

Right now the laws are a joke, a soft gauntlet easy to pass and, once passed, the invaders are free to stay as long as they like. There is almost no chance they will ever get deported. Everyone knows this - the Democrats know this and like it, the Republicans, except for the oligarchs, know it and don't like it, the immigrants and potential immigrants know it and exploit it.

This has to end.

We are being played for fools.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think "more immigration, but no Mexicans" is really a good look.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Because there is leverage on that side of the aisle and Tyler is trying to shame them into his views. Trump is stubborn, shameless and intimidates most beta, low energy libertarians so there is no hope for change there.

+1
consider the jazzmastern part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd1Xmr2YY7c

1 the stupidest show on television!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The Democrats control 90% of the unelected civil service which *actually* runs the country, and the universities which set the agenda. They are almost permanently in power.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out!

Much of the "controversy" around Trump's policies is driven by Dems predominance in these areas.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"I find that odd."

I don't find it odd. The quintessential question in US politics today is:

"how in the hell did Trump ever get elected?"

Dems answer the question with a wide variety of conspiracy theories. But the real answer is pretty simple: Dems policies are so far left that the country voted against them. If their policies were more sensible most of our major issues could be solved.

Maybe that is where Tyler is coming from, but I'm afraid I will hear it as "please, come up with a rational immigration policy which can counter the irrational and populist xenophobia now in vogue."

Is that even possible? Especially if you accept populist xenophobia as "the lay of the land?"

It sure ain't asking equal accommodation from both sides.

Trump has offered to increase the amount of legal immigration in exchange to allow him to stop illegal immigration. How is that that irrational and populist?

How many billions did that plan include for walls through lakes?

Did that sound right in your head?

I don't know if you remember, but Trump's campaigned on a wall across the "entire border"

Which Mexico was going to pay for.

I think the best deal he ever offered Democrats was that they would pay for it instead.

There are lakes between the US and Mexico?

Yes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_International_Reservoir

At 110 ft deep. You could, if you wanted. Or it could be considered a barrier in its own right. I'll let you make the choice.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Also

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_Reservoir

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Trump's administration has actively worked to significantly reduce legal immigration as well. Any vague offer Trump made to increase legal immigration was in bad faith when taking the administration's actions into account.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Indeed, the position by the Democratic Party on this issue is incoherent. Ths has been entirely self inflicted as they intentionally muddled the waters between legal and illegal immigration. Trump found a way to exploit their position, and press them on it, and now they have no choice but to go off the ideological cliff.

I couldn’t be happier.

Not true:

"Decriminalizing migration isn’t exactly the same as opening the borders. People coming to the US without papers could still be deported if they were caught and taken before an immigration judge. But it would make unauthorized immigration purely a civil offense, instead of a criminal one."

And if you get employers to validate citizenship you might have the best of both worlds. Fewer deaths and a lower draw for illegal immigration.

The immigrant must sue in some agency court, generally you end up with an immigration civil court.

But the immigrant has no cause to sue if he is walking back and forth to immigration court, he is free and has status quo, his complaint is receiving a citation.

If we get past that, then the immigrant loses and the citation orders him back to Mexico. But he is not forced, he can walk across town and have a beer, then be given another civil citations and it restarts.

The government cannot force payment or action except by contempt of court, a crime. You always get back to a crime if you plan to force anyone to do something. If you lose in civil court, and someone gets your house, then it is not a crime, If you refuse to leave, then it is contempt, a crime, enforceable.

We did deport 250k last year, and not for "illegal crossing."

Again, everything you say if false. The government doesn't need contempt proceedings to enforce the law. Do you think that you can just refuse to pay your parking tickets and the government has to bring a criminal contempt proceeding against you. Try it. See what happens. You don't know anything about the legal system. You should stop talking about it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

When you think about it, decriminalization might be a better "libertarian contrarianism" but .. it doesn't let you take partisan digs at "the woke."

No.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Better question, is Justice Roberts mentally ill?

Roberts, in his idiocy, applies the Congressional accountability act to a constitutional provision. Congress cannot overrule the constitution, the law was strictly limited to cases where Congress deferred its power to the president.

Roberts is a pure idiot on this. Not we will have a rash of suits agents, "Regulate commerce", sue on the accountability act. Right to tax? Sue on the accountability act. Disperse defense contracts? Sue on the accountability act.

That act should not be applied to a constitutional given authority to the executive, such as running the census. The constitution, when it specified the census, deliberately used the word citizen to establish voting. Previous censuses had that provision.

We have a more serious problem, and the disease is getting worse, now Thomas want to invent law on genetics. They have all gone Sotomayor, the courts will be jammed and useless. Of all the disasters, the Roberts court is one of the worst. We are headed to failed hispanic state status, another banana republic.

um, no. The word census doesn't appear in the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 talks about an "enumeration." Article I deals with the powers and duties of Congress, not the president. It is Congress' duty to see that a Census is done. So, when they pass legislation to tell the Executive how to do it, their legislation is what we in the business call the "law." So, Roberts -- not a dumby. Oh, and the word "citizen" does not actually appear in Article I Section 2. Wrong again, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you because you didn't read the Constitution before calling the Chief Justice an idiot.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

One good thing about Trump is he has revealed a lot of peoples actual beliefs and preferences. I wish he would take the strict line on immigration and deport 30k Canadian and maybe 10k Irish visa overstayers and reveal some more beliefs and preferences.

p.s. congrats on finally burying "woke" as a term. You guys can have it now.

I'm ok with deporting any and all who violate our immigration laws. This is not a novel idea!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Immigration is good - it continually reinvigorates the population. However, not all immigration is equally good. Getting overrun by uneducated, low or no skill, non-English speaking immigrants from the third world is not in our best interest, given the future of AI and automation and their impact on employment. It is especially bad if the immigrants speak Spanish, as the size of the existing Spanish speaking population creates a nation within a nation and the ugly consequences that implies. Many of the immigrants will not feel any need to learn English, with signs and documents in Spanish everywhere and being surrounded by other Spanish speaking people they can get by without English. This is a recipe for tribalism. It certainly doesn't help bind the immigrants to the citizens of their adopted country.

We should have controlled, legal immigration based on our needs. The current citizens of the nation should have a say, via our laws, in determining the criteria for entry. If someone doesn't meet the criteria, we should be able to reject them. If they enter illegally, we should be able to deport them expeditiously. To do any less challenges the notion that we are a nation of laws. If immigrants don't have to obey the law, why should citizens obey the law? And if citizens decide that obeying the law makes them suckers, what laws will citizens choose not to respect? Would it be ok if citizens choose not to respect tax law? Gun laws? Environmental regulations? Will it be ok if citizens pick and choose the laws to obey? Will that work?

We do not have controlled, rule based immigration today. Instead, uncontrolled illegal immigration has been foisted upon us, by both sjw Democrats pandering for votes and greedy Republicans pandering to their business financiers, and we the people are painted as racists if we object.
This is why Trump was elected, why the election was even close. Things could get even worse if this is not fixed soon.

The election of Trump is far far less than the worst that could happen.

Excellent points. That immigration was mostly ignored by both parties because RACISM was a big part of Trump getting the nomination and winning the general. (Although that his opponent in the general was beyond horrible helped immensely).

A plus side of a squeaker Hillary victory may have been a coherent legal immigration reform (a reform that would be WAY to the right of where many TDS infected Dems are today).

How many tens or hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants would would have stormed the border every month after Hillary's inauguration? Or will after Kamala's?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This needlessly politicizes the Census and further pushes big government into our lives. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, none of them cared to ask and that's fine. What's next? Asking people if they ever smoked weed? There are much bigger issues to think about like healthcare, middle class jobs, education. Let's focus on that.

Isn't the point of the census to enumerate different features of the citizenry of a country? That requires knowing who the citizens are.

The point of the Census is to keep track of the population numbers for representation and taxation purposes. From a strict view of the Constitution, anything beyond that is too intrusive.

Right but since non citizens don't vote or pay income taxes, the census needs to identify citizens.

Non-citizens resident in the U.S. most certainly pay income tax, along with SS and Medicare and sales tax (where applicable). Why would you possibly think otherwise?

Respond

Add Comment

Non citizens may not vote but they do pay taxes.

Respond

Add Comment

since non citizens don't vote or pay income taxes, the census needs to identify citizens.

That's idiotic. There is no reason for that. The Census has nothing to do with income taxes or voter registration.

Your "since" is nonsensical.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If you question was "are you a US citizen, yes or no?" you Might have a point.

But what Trump wants to enumerate is shades of citizens.

What this means is reflect the policy of Georgia which is to deny by any means services to US citizens who happen to be born in Puerto Rico.

"A man is accusing Georgia of discriminating in doling out driver's licenses and requiring Puerto Ricans to answer trivia questions about fritters, frogs, hillbilly hats, baseball players and customs on their native island.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the US District Court for Northern Georgia, accuses the state's Department of Driver Services of violating the Civil Rights Act by engaging in "race-based stereotyping and implicit bias against Puerto Ricans." It seeks unspecified damages."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/us/georgia-puerto-rico-drivers-license-lawsuit/index.html

We now have a bit more information on this state Department of Driver Services policy. Specifically, we have the 43 potential questions that the DDS has put together in a “Puerto Rican Interview Guide.”A copy of the guide was provided by attorneys for Kenneth Caban Gonzalez, who says he’s waited 600 days for his Georgia driver’s license – and still doesn’t have it.The DDS document says the material contained within was “taken from Diplomatic Security Service PR Interview Guide,” but it’s not clear whether that’s a federal source. Neither does the document indicate when it was put together.

But we have a clue about the latter. One of the questions is “Who is the current governor of PR?” The answer contained in the document is “Pedro Rosello.” Pedro Rossello was governor of Puerto Rico from 1993 to 2001. Which could indicate that it’s been around for some time.(It was Gov. Ricardo Rossello of Puerto Rico who called out Kemp today.)Updated at 6 p.m.: Shevondah Leslie, the DDS director of communications, just called to say that the “Puerto Rican Interview Guide” was never authorized by DDS authorities, but was unable to say in whose possession the document was in when it surfaced during the lawsuit discovery process -- last December, before Kemp took office.

Kemp spokeswoman Candice Broce also sent us this statement: “Governor Kemp expects state employees to follow the law and treat every constituent with dignity and respect. Our team has spoken with DDS Commissioner Spencer Moore and asked him to conduct a full investigation into these claims.” Now, as we were saying, the “Puerto Rican Interview Guide” has its trick questions:
-- “Where is Caguas Beach? Caguas is the largest inland city and has no beach.”

-- “How long is the San Juan-Fajardo train ride? There is no train.”

-- “How do citizens of Puerto Rico vote for President of the U.S. They cannot vote for the U.S. President.”

https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/the-questions-georgia-asks-puerto-ricans-who-want-driver-license/73DJinxeSKIlUCOlorCmnK/

If impersonating Puerto Ricans is carried out at especially high rates by Latin American illegal migrants, it seems very hard to see that this isn't proportionate.

Quiz based measures to authenticate places of birth always have the problem that you will encounter stupid people, however. Some false positives where a person with very subnormal levels of knowledge about their country actually is from that country.

Note though, in your article: An online search of Liberty County Superior Court filings turns up no case involving Caban Gonzalez. While LatinoJustice can confirm he was detained, the organization did not provide counsel to Caban Gonzalez in the criminal matter and cannot comment on its status, spokesman Christiaan Perez said.

So was there even an arrest or case raised criminal case to answer? Did they even keep his documents? Or is this a bit of Smollett-style grifting?

'If impersonating Puerto Ricans is carried out at especially high rates by Latin American illegal migrants'

I am not really sure how to put this to you, but American citizens are not supposed to be subject to such questions in any interaction with the government.

'Quiz based measures to authenticate places of birth'

American citizens have birth certificates, which is considered sufficient to establish place of birth. There is an exception involving American citizens born abroad to at least one American citizen. Though they likely have a birth certificate from the country where they were born, to prove American citizenship from birth, they will have a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html Of course, this does not apply to anyone born in Puerto Rico, all of whom are automatically American citizens.

'An online search of Liberty County Superior Court filings turns up no case involving Caban Gonzalez. '

However, the major lawsuit, involving more than one person, was filed Tuesday in the US District Court for Northern Georgia, and includes this - 'There are likely more than 40 Puerto Ricans with similar claims, according to the lawsuit. Forty plaintiffs is the number required to initiate a class-action lawsuit.

"The so-called quiz, applied to Puerto Rican drivers, bears a strikingly disturbing resemblance to the tests applied by segregationists to block voter registration of people of color," said Gerry Weber, a senior attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights, which is litigating the case with the advocacy group, LatinoJustice.

DDS spokeswoman Shevondah Leslie confirmed the quiz questions come from a document the department released to comply with an open records request, but said it "is not an authorized DDS document." She declined to comment further, citing the litigation.'

Of course, Americans with even the slightest familiarity of American history do not really need to have a historical parallel involving quizzes that other American citizens have had to face, based on the fact, apparently, that those with black skin were simply pretending to be citizens in the eyes of those in charge of administering the tests.

Prior: I am not really sure how to put this to you, but American citizens are not supposed to be subject to such questions in any interaction with the government.

This will make it very difficult to identify identity fraud!

(And, I think you've understood how to put it to me - with preening sarcastic condescension, the signature Prior style).

"Let identity fraud be ignored, though the heavens may fall" is, I know, the US left's maxim when it comes to immigration and voting, though of course in other contexts they probably care, and authentic identity, and governments and social bodies in fact being *intimately* involved in tests to authenticate identity, is really important to them. (For instance, when considering some set of ethnic set aside gibs).

'This will make it very difficult to identify identity fraud! '

For American citizens? Of course not. As pointed out in the article, which you have already read - 'Other examples of Georgia's allegedly discriminatory practices include flagging Puerto Rican birth certificates for fraud review and refusing to accept any birth certificate issued in Puerto Rico before July 2010, the lawsuit states. (In 2010, in an effort to combat identity fraud, Puerto Ricans were required by law to obtain new birth certificates.)
As part of his 2017 application for a driver's license, Caban Gonzalez submitted a birth certificate issued in 2014, a valid Puerto Rico driver's license, a pay stub and his Social Security card to DDS, which the state kept.' And that Puerto Rican driver's license would (likely, depending on when it was issued) have been fully compliant with the REAL ID Act, meaning this in terms of ID fraud- 'Puerto Rico is compliant with the REAL ID Act. Federal agencies can accept driver's licenses and identification cards from Puerto Rico at Federal facilities and nuclear power plants.

Secure driver's licenses and identification documents are a vital component of a holistic national security strategy. Law enforcement must be able to rely on government-issued identification documents and know that the bearer of such a document is who he or she claims to be. REAL ID is a coordinated effort by the states and the Federal Government to improve the reliability and accuracy of state-issued identification documents, which should inhibit terrorists’ ability to evade detection by using fraudulent identification.' https://www.dhs.gov/real-id/puerto-rico

And really, who cares whatever maxims the Left or the Right believe in? It is not a question of whether one is on the left or the right that American citizens are not to be subjected to government interrogation when applying for a driver's license - or to vote, for that matter. This is why they have officially issued documents proving they are American citizens, after all.

The reasonable person would expect agencies to carry out document fraud checks, and carry out basic identity verification checks when they suspect document fraud, rather than simply take all documents at face value.

Interviews demonstrating knowledge consistent with an identity (does X have basic medical when a doctor, etc?) are not disproportionate checks. This is how the ordinary person would expect the government to work.

I don't you exactly why you are indulging in some bizarre hyperbole by referring to a set of ordinary general knowledge questions, not performed under any sort of duress, including no particularly personal, private or secret information as "interrogation".

I hope no US government official ever asks you what a bierwurst or when the Oktoberfest is when you tell him you have lived in Germany, lest you start wildly accusing him of Stasi-like interrogation that no American citizen ought ever to be subjected to!

'The reasonable person would expect agencies to carry out document fraud checks'

Of course, which is why Georgia stands out in this case. A recently issued birth certificate and a valid driver's license are more than sufficient to prove identity, and the document fraud checks should be trivial, as all the documents were recently issued by the proper American authorities - the REAL ID Act was intended to make this system robust, after all.

'Interviews demonstrating knowledge consistent with an identity (does X have basic medical when a doctor, etc?) are not disproportionate checks.'

You can keep insisting this, but it is simply incorrect regarding American citizens interacting with their government in a setting like the DMV.

'This is how the ordinary person would expect the government to work.'

American citizens most certainly do not expect their government to act like this in terms of American citizens.

'I hope no US government official ever asks you what a bierwurst or when the Oktoberfest is when you tell him you have lived in Germany'

American citizens are not interrogated - or would questioned meet you approval? - as to their citizenship at the border, as their passport is sufficient to prove their citizenship. That a border/customs agent has the right to ask certain questions is true, and that they too have an interest in preventing fraud is obvious. However, they have no right to demand an American citizen explain what is normally eaten at Thanksgiving so as to prevent non-Americans from entering the country.

'lest you start wildly accusing him of Stasi-like interrogation that no American citizen ought ever to be subjected to'

Why would I accuse them of anything? As an American citizen, I have the right not to answer any such questions as those put to American citizens from Puerto Rico by officials at the George DMV. I suspect we have very different ideas of how a normal government functions, but then, the U.S. does have an actual written Constitution based on the idea that government has boundaries which it is not allowed to cross when dealing with law abiding citizens.

(Obviously a broad subject, and there are a number of large differences between American citizens and non-Americans, along with an ever expanding security framework making the previously clear distinctions between allowable and unallowable questions ever muddier.)

Your contention is that a person showing up at US immigration control, with a suspected false US passport, would not be subject to interview, and that were they interviewed to corroborate their true identity, this would outrage American expectations of government power and they would term it interrogation.

As an American citizen, I have the right not to answer any such questions as those put to American citizens from Puerto Rico by officials at the Georg(ia) DMV

It doesn't seem that there is any implication in this article that coercion or restraint was ever used to force people to answer this "quiz", so I'm not sure what your comment about "I have the right not to answer any such questions" exactly is about. There is no question that these people did not "have the right" to refuse to answer, though this may not have been favourable towards their claimed identity if they did not.

It does not seem that there was ever any attempt to coerce anyone to answer any questions, though it may not have helped their case that they were not committing identity fraud if they didn't.

the U.S. does have an actual written Constitution based on the idea that government has boundaries which it is not allowed to cross when dealing with law abiding citizens

I can almost guarantee you that there is nothing specific US constitution to 'protect' individuals from being interviewed to confirm their identity when suspected of providing false documents to the DMV. You don't have to be a US constitutional expert to have a pretty good guess on that.

'Your contention is that a person showing up at US immigration control, with a suspected false US passport, would not be subject to interview'

Not my contention, though maybe the ( ) was a bit unclear. My contention, responding to your scenario, would still not involve an interview, it would involve immediate detention (at an airport, at least). Which based on your scenario of a suspected false passport would not be seen as anything but prudent handling of a potential terrorist threat by most Americans, at least these days.

'in this article that coercion or restraint was ever used to force people to answer this'

Well sure - no one is forced to have a valid ID issued by the state they live in. Oh wait, yes they are, actually, and a driver's license is clearly required to legally drive. No citizens of other states were subject to this process.

'that there was ever any attempt to coerce anyone to answer any questions'

Well, you seem to have skipped over the fact that his birth certificate, PR driver's license, and SS card were kept by Georgia.

'I can almost guarantee you that there is nothing specific US constitution to 'protect' individuals from being interviewed to confirm their identity when suspected of providing false documents to the DMV'

Of course there is - the police are the ones who, with probable cause, have the right to interview a citizen involved in (potential) criminal activities. The person at the DMV counter has no rights in this area, though of course they can call the police. As seems to have happened, actually - 'The month after Caban Gonzalez applied for his license, a DDS inspector texted him asking him to visit the department's office in Savannah for an interview, but after Caban Gonzalez arrived and took his exam, he was arrested, Vasquez said.' Do note that his detention is confirmed, even if no court case was found. (A cynical person might note that arrests often do not result in court cases, especially when the charges would seem to involve an American citizen being charged with 'fraudulent' claims of being an American citizen.)

Let me just repeat, without ( ) - 'Obviously a broad subject.'

prior: Well, you seem to have skipped over the fact that his birth certificate, PR driver's license, and SS card were kept by Georgia.

Yes, government agencies don't often return suspect fraudulent documents immediately (or ever) while under investigation. If you're that interested in this case, follow the court case when it's published and you'll have an understanding of the process, and why these documents were retained (I would suspect because they were believed to be instruments of fraud, or a bureaucratic screw up).

his detention is confirmed, even if no court case was found

Well, not exactly. "While LatinoJustice can confirm he was detained, the organization did not provide counsel to Caban Gonzalez in the criminal matter and cannot comment on its status, spokesman Christiaan Perez said".

So the Georgian DMV did not confirm he was detained, certainly not by them, a legal foundation and advocacy groups alleges, as as part of their lawsuit, that some body (and it is unclear who!), detained him. You'll have to follow the case further to actually see if this pans out, and whether, if he was ever detained, it was actually by the police - who have the powers to do so as part of a fraud investigation, as you note.

Of course there is - the police are the ones who, with probable cause, have the right to interview a citizen involved in (potential) criminal activities.

Yes, the police have the *powers* to detain a person to interview them - but of course almost any government body investing fraud against it can and will in practice request a voluntary interview. Which, even if its a case of "Attend our interview or do not get a licence", is still a voluntary interview unless there is any actual restraint involved.

'(I would suspect because they were believed to be instruments of fraud, or a bureaucratic screw up).'

And to think there his solution was simply to get new documents, something that is clearly normal for those committing ID fraud. 'Because the DDS inspector kept his documents, the lawsuit says, Caban Gonzalez in June 2018 applied for a new birth certificate and Social Security card, which he used to obtain a state ID.' Even more strangely, this was the result of his having clearly valid ID - 'While he received a state identification card in January, he has not heard back on the driver's license after more than 600 days, according to the lawsuit.

Had he received a denial in that time period, he would've been able to appeal the decision before a judge, but because he received no response, he's left without recourse, it says.'

'but of course almost any government body investing fraud against it can and will in practice request a voluntary interview'

Anybody can ask - and you, as an American citizen, are welcome to not answer.

'Which, even if its a case of "Attend our interview or do not get a licence", is still a voluntary interview unless there is any actual restraint involved.'

Well, in his case, it was actually take the exam at the request of the DMV and get arrested, but I'm sure that there is some way to say his arrest was a voluntary decision on his part too.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"If you question was "are you a US citizen, yes or no?" you Might have a point."

It should be that. Would you object if it were? How else should we enumerate the voting and tax paying population?

You know that non-citizens who earn money in the U.S. also pay American taxes, right? Tax paying within the U.S. is not a matter of American citizenship, but of American residency.

You know that non-citizens who earn money in the U.S. also pay American taxes, right? Tax paying within the U.S. is not a matter of American citizenship, but of American residency.

Of course he doesn't know that.

He's plainly a moron.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, none of them cared to ask and that's fine" Washington, correct. The question was asked between 1820 and 2000 though. And still is asked on the ACS census, so we're just going back to what we did for almost the whole life of the census. If that makes you wet your pants, the problem might not be the question.

Indeed, my ancestors answered the questions, which asked about citizenship status and when and from where the person arrived, starting with the 1900 Census.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

> Countries [..], such as Canada and Australia, take pretty tough stances in controlling their borders.

The worst-kept secret is that there is a spot where you can literally walk across the border into Canada, and the police will not stop you or arrest you, but rather will literally help carry your bags, which you brought with you in the taxi that drove you to the border from the US side. Google "Roxham Road" "Lacolle" for news stories.

Since there is an election in a few months, the government might eventually crack down. They might even have done so already, I don't really follow this story anymore. This crossing was open for at least a couple of years, probably longer.

Canada is tough mainly on people who follow the rules and fill out forms and sit at home waiting to be admitted legally. There's a points system and all that, with exacting criteria. But historically, finding another way to get in has been a more successful strategy, and there is really not all that much appetite for cracking down and deporting people once they're in. The public mostly shrugs.

Respond

Add Comment

What is the population frame for the census? All people who happen to be in the US at the time of the census, including tourists and illegal immigrants? If yes, we should know who the non citizens are so they don't bias research results that use the census and aim to address issues pertaining to American citizens. If it's intended to be administered only to American citizens, the same applies.

I don't understand how it's controversial to ask the status of those residing in a country during its national census. Is the idea that illegals may be scared to report their true status and report as citizens, biasing results? Well if we don't know their status we have to assume legality and the result is the same.

You are saying the Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes based on changing politics?

The Constitution clearly calls for "persons" not "citizens" to be enumerated for the purposes of apportionment.

Other questions asked are historically added for commerce reasons. Which is why the agency responsible is Commerce.

When selling something, say a hot dog, shirt, should businesses care if the person paying money is a citizen or not?

Its interesting how some States, eg Georgia, want businesses to fail or leave the State because workers are not available to be paid to work. The GOP elite seem to be failing to raise farm laborers to meet the needs of farmers, yet they do everything to thwart immigrant labor who will do the work. Higher wages do not work to get people to leave retail jobs paying less.

It calls for the enumeration for the purposes of representation and taxation. That requires knowing who is eligible to vote and required to pay income tax. That requires knowing something about respondents citizenship status.

'and required to pay income tax'

Everybody who earns money in the U.S., citizen and non-citizen alike, is required to pay income tax. Why would you possibly think otherwise?

Respond

Add Comment

I, a legal permanent resident but not a citizen, have been paying income tax for decades. Now you're telling me that I don't need to pay income tax ? I'll ask for a massive refund in my next federal tax return ! Thank you so much for telling me !

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

While I would still disagree with the question if the fear was only that the non-citizen would avoid the census, the issue is that entire families, and possibly large sections of communities would avoid the census so as not to endanger the wealthfare of a non-citizen within the family or community. For them, there is very little personal upside to taking the census with the citizenship question included and a great threat possible if it is answered, as ICE would work day and night to gain access to those responses so as to more effectively remove non-citizens. Honestly, if the question is on the census, I suspect ICE would be found tailing census takers and arresting people that gave the wrong answer.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Freud's best idea was projection. The Democrats are trying to rig future elections through illegal immigration, so they indignantly accuse the Republicans of having partisan motives for not laying down to their dominance.

Freud's best idea was projection. The Republicans are trying to rig future elections through continued attempts at racial gerrymandering, so they indignantly accuse the Democrats of having partisan motives for not laying down to their dominance.

Though it would be nice if someone could post links that quote documents with the same value as those written by Republicans in North Carolina.

Because it is not projection when it is simply reality - 'North Carolina Republicans lied about their racially gerrymandered district map in an attempt to stop a special election, advocacy group Common Cause said in court filings Thursday.

The group said that files found on longtime GOP gerrymandering architect Thomas Hofeller’s hard drive after his death last year show that the North Carolina Republican Party misled a federal court into extending the deadline for revising the state's legislative districts, which had been ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Hofeller, who was paid millions by the Republican National Committee, left behind a trove of hard drives and flash drives detailing his work for the party. His estranged daughter discovered the files and turned them over to advocacy groups challenging the Republican policies in court.

Some of the files relate to Covington v. North Carolina, a lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s racial gerrymander. The Republican-led legislature was ordered in 2016 to draw new maps by a federal district court. The Supreme Court agreed that the maps were unconstitutional but sent the case back to the district court to determine how soon the maps must be implemented, the New York Times reported.

Republicans told the court that they would not be able to redraw maps in time for a special election in 2017. The party said it had not “start[ed] the laborious process of redistricting earlier” than July 2017, and could only “begin the process of compiling a record in July 2017 with a goal of enacting new plans by the end of the year.” State GOP leaders said they needed additional time to “engage in internal discussions about the design of remedial districts” and “prepare draft remedial plans.” The court was convinced and allowed the illegal map to stay in place for another year.

During a legislative hearing, North Carolina state Rep. David Lewis, a Republican who led the redistricting effort, said that there was not “anything that has been drawn by Dr. Hofeller or anybody else that you know of that have not yet been released.”

“I have not yet drawn maps nor have I directed that maps be drawn, nor am I aware of any other entity operating in conjunction with the leadership that has drawn maps.” Lewis said.

Common Cause said the newly discovered files show that the Republican Party’s statements to the court were false. '

The gerrymandering question is a waste of time. the constitution gives states the right to make legislative districts. it doesn't specify how those districts should be made. It's the prerogative of the party in power to do as they wish. Spare me the racial accusations against republicans, as democrats surely do exactly the same. The biggest problem is that there is no reasonable criteria that can distinguish a "gerrymandered" boundary from one that is not "gerrymandered".

If you want districts free of gerrymandering, you get software that lays a grid over your county or state, then widens and narrows the columns and rows until the appropriate number of districts with equal population is achieved. If you do that, you have an indisputable non-gerrymandered set of districts.

'Spare me the racial accusations against republicans, as democrats surely do exactly the same.'

Then it should be no problem to provide some links demonstrating that just as clearly as the case in North Carolina, with extensive documentary evidence.

'If you want districts free of gerrymandering'

You could do what a number of states have done - take district drawing out of the hands of self-interested politicians. There is no questions that those in power will use any power they can wield to retain power for themselves.

The Republicans are trying to rig future elections through continued attempts at racial gerrymandering...

Lolol. Have you ever actually looked at what some districts look like?

It’s been going on for decades. It’s not just Republicans.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Pretty obvious, but all the usual commenters try to obscure the reality.

And very obvious you do not have even a single link, do you?

In contrast, below is a list of court cases, one of which is now performing discovery to more fully investigate the role of Thomas Hofeller, and extensively members of the current administration have lied in court. The case, Kravitz v. United States Dep't of Commerce, is found herehttps://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/kravitz-v-united-states-dept-commerce

A complete list of cases involving the citizenship question is here -

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/2020-census-litigation

I'm sure your links demonstrating, with documentary evidence, that 'Democrats are trying to rig future elections through illegal immigration' will be equally enlightening. Admittedly, without such links, it would seem to a textbook case of projection, from a partisan perspective at least.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This might make sense if we didn’t currently have federal stormtroopers going into cities and rounding up non-citizens to put them in concentration camps. And the point about Canada displays serious ignorance; many asylees have fled ICE raids and gone to Canada, where they are accepted and then taken off the ICE lists.

You don’t even try to explain why Census would be the best place to obtain this information, rather than ACS, for example. I’m very interested in knowing how many people in each household have ever said the “n-word”. Let’s use the Census for that.

Canada taakes a different approach, one of public discourse:

"Consulting with census data users and the Canadian public allows Statistics Canada to identify whether or not the questions asked in the census are relevant, how census data are used and how important the census is to Canadians. A formal consultation is set at the start of each census cycle. During that time, Statistics Canada invites data users, stakeholders and the general public to provide feedback on what information they use, for what purpose and what, if any, data gaps Statistics Canada should consider addressing in the next census cycle.

Statistics Canada conducted a content consultation from September 2017 to May 2018. It involved an online consultation and face-to-face discussions with federal departments, provincial and territorial ministries and organizations, municipal governments, First Nations, Inuit and Métis individuals, leadership and organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), researchers and academia, businesses and the general public.

Factors considered in developing content include legislative requirements for information, program and policy needs, the burden on the respondent in answering the questions, privacy concerns, input from consultations and testing, data quality, costs and operational considerations, historical comparability, and the availability of alternate data sources.

Following consultation, Statistics Canada qualitatively tested new and modified questions with the help of Statistics Canada's Questionnaire Design Resource Center (QDRC). These qualitative tests were conducted in the spring and fall of 2018.

The 2019 Census Test is the final stage of census testing. As a result of the consultation and the qualitative testing, Statistics Canada refined the new and modified questions. The 2019 Census Test will quantitatively test these questions to ensure data quality and continued relevance of the census content."

http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3901

Trump and others seem to lie about why the ask the questions, and what they intend to do in violation of the laws of Congress.

And why isn't Trump demanding this type of question given his claimed love of the military?

"11. Have you ever served in the Canadian military?

Canadian military service includes service with the Regular Force or Primary Reserve Force as an Officer or Non-Commissioned Member. It does not include service with the Cadets (COATS), the Supplementary Reserve or the Canadian Rangers.

Mark " X " one circle only.;

Yes, currently serving in the Regular Force or the Primary Reserve Force
Yes, but no longer serving in the Regular Force or the Primary Reserve Force
No"

"The law protects what you tell us
The confidentiality of your responses is protected by law. All Statistics Canada employees have taken an oath of secrecy. Your personal information cannot be given to anyone outside Statistics Canada without your consent. This is your right.

Reasons why we ask the questions
Steps A to D and question 1 are used to collect contact information and determine who should be included on the questionnaire. They help us ensure that we have counted everyone we need to count and that no one is counted twice.

Questions 2 to 7 provide information about the living arrangements of people in Canada, the family size, the number of children living with one parent or two parents, and the number of people who live alone. This information is used for planning social programs, such as Old Age Security and the Canada Child Benefit. It is also used by municipalities to plan a variety of services such as day care centres, schools, police, fire protection and residences for seniors.

Questions 8 to 10 are used to provide a profile of the linguistic diversity of Canada's population. This information is used to estimate the need for services in English and French, and to better understand the current state and the evolution of Canada's various language groups.

Question 11 provides information on the number of people with Canadian military experience. Governments can use this information to develop programs and services to meet the changing needs of the veteran population."

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If you can’t ask about citizenship on your census, as indeed Canada and Australia do, it is a sign that your broader approach to immigration is broken.

No. It may mean the constitution is broken. There is no precedent or provision for including a citizenship question in the census. It was not a concern of the founders.

Is was asked from 1820 to 2000. And still is on the ACS.

No, it was not asked from 1820 to 2000. It has never been asked of every person on the census, not a single time. It has been asked on some occasions to certain respondents. The Atlantic had a pretty good article on it, actually. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/citizenship-questions-are-not-historically-normal/593014/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Abundantly clear, Tyler, that you have not been following this issue. As an economist, you should be in favor of an accurate census.

Well, considering that the name Thomas Hofeller does not appear anywhere in the column though his work plays a major role in the current issue, 'abundantly clear' can be considered charitable, actually.

Or, on the other hand, Prof. Cowen is perfectly aware of the various ramifications involved in following the various proposals of people like Thomas Hofeller, and is doing his best to support them.

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler thinks he is a political person, not an economist.

If he were an economist, he would understand how the commons is damaged if there is not an accounting of persons, and the allocation of resources on the basis of persons.

He deserves criticism for this position. Polluting data.

Of course he does. Next time democrats are in charge, we should just add a simple question like, "Do you own guns?" to the census. I am sure that the Republican respond will be perfectly consistent with the position now.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

What you need to do is, when you build your wall, don't put it on the border. Build it one mile back. Then you won't be deporting people, you'll just be sending them to Sub-Wall USA. And they'll be free to return as soon as they deposit $15,000 in one of the turnstiles built into the wall. There will also be kiosks built into the wall selling food and water and guides on how to make a buck after you sneak into Mexico.

Respond

Add Comment

I'll 'fess up to not reading the full Bloomberg article, but do you think there's a danger in assuming the Democratic Party's policies are perfectly reflected in a few blurbs extracted from a debate in primary season? These are the ideas of a few individuals, and I don't think the fact that they were expressed at all means they're necessarily indicative of the party's platform.

Respond

Add Comment

Sure, you are totally right we should be able to ask about citizenship. A working system would have that feature (indeed would use unbiased statistical estimates to correct for any under response). However, our system is broken and it doesn’t follow that just changing that one aspect will make things better. Also there is a huge difference between asking the question and linking it to the data for reapportionment. Very few object to collecting the info.

Respond

Add Comment

Illegal immigration should be zero.

Legal immigration should be very limited and very selective. Whether from Iceland, Nigeria, India, Honduras, or China - the people we accept as immigrants should have demonstrated achievement, speak English, and be ready to assimilate and shift allegiance to the US. There should be no chain migration.

We have 325 million here now. While we should always welcome the truly exceptional, there are very few of those, and fewer still eager to leave family and country behind. A reasonable cap is 25,000 a year.

The Democrats have a 50 year history of bad faith on immigration, and less than zero credibility, and although elected Republicans talk a better game, their actions are little better (see McCain, Rubio, Bush, etc.). This week it is reported that a Democratic congresswoman has been sending staff into Mexico to instruct foreign citizens how best to fraudulently enter the U.S.

Democratic de facto open borders policy is madness - at best. A more cynical, and probably more accurate, assessment is that they fully understand all the downsides of this and are doing it anyway as a ploy to gain political power.

the people we accept as immigrants should have demonstrated achievement, speak English, and be ready to assimilate and shift allegiance to the US.

Depending on your definition of an "American" there are millions of them, the products of generations of US citizenship, that have failed to "assimilate".

It's easy for immigrants to assimilate. What they need to do is: spend a lot of time and money maintaining a beautiful lawn that is seldom trod upon, install beige wall-to-wall carpeting in their homes, get many tattoos, wear T-shirts with advertising or insipid homilies, watch television 6 or more hours per day, be at least 20 lbs. overweight, uncritically accept the notions of recent grads of college journalism programs and ignore the most obvious truths of economics.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Given the number of emigrants from the United States, only 25,000 immigrants would kick the US into negative population growth. Perhaps the US could become the Japan of the Americas?

You mean having to get by with only 300 million people - compared to the 325 million we have today, and the 200 million we had in 1970?

How ever will we manage? Better than with the 400+ million we get on our current path.

Japan seems to be managing their population decline. There are of course pros and cons.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The Democrat party also opposes any type of ID verification of the right to vote. Much the same thing.

Yeah, just like they suppress voter turnout, favor ID requirements that require you to go 20 miles to get an ID, locate polling places at the edge of the district, and understaff to create long lines, and eliminate people from the rolls if they did not vote in the last two elections.

Oops.

You said Democrat. I thought you said Republican.

I live in a state that does not require voter ID. The clerk can ask for identification, but often it is a neighbor. I can also do same day registration. No problem with our elections.

No one forced you guys to build your coalition on the backs of dumbfuck pants shitters too poor and dumb to have photo ID.

When one party discriminates against the poor and blacks, is it surprising the other party is their refuge?

Your words are your own best evidence.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Context matters. Purely as data, citizenship would be useful and interesting information. But adding the question in the current climate of abuse and targeting of immigrants, legal and illegal, would lead to lower quality data overall in a way that serves the political interests of the party in power. So no, it should not be added this year.

Doesn’t mean never, future context will be different. And policy choices on other parts of the overall immigration issues are irrelevant to my answer on the census question. The census is too important throughout all our policy development in government to allow the skewing of the data to happen.

Personally, I favor strong borders, a path to citizenship, increase immigration, respecting international asylum norms, and no concentration camps with inhumane conditions.

There is a clear path to citizenship - lots of people have gone down that path. You go apply at the US Embassy in your own country.

Why is it in our national interest to allow increased immigration, particularly of persons who are going to be a net burden on the country?

International norms would mean that every non-Mexican immigrant has reached a safe country when they reach Mexico, so they have no legitimate entry into the US.

We don't have any concentration camps. People are free to go home at any time.

' You go apply at the US Embassy in your own country. '

Um, not really? You are welcome to read how the process officially work here - https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/apply-citizenship

However, any non-American wishing to reside legally in the U.S. will basically have gone through an American embassy/consulate at some point, though not necessarily in the country where they are a citizen. A Nigerian citizen residing in Germany who wishes to work for a year in the U.S. does not need to go to Lagos to file the necessary visa paperwork (at least from previous experience involving non-Germans living in Germany applying for American visas).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If there is a citizenship question on the census, I will reply "No" and will encourage my fellow citizens who object to the question to do the same. Here's the hashtag I propose, to make the idea viral and to encourage minorities to participate in the census without fear: #IPledgeNo

Just discourage farmers to ignore the census as it will be used to cut off farm price supports.

As Trump would say: That's what I heard from someone.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

There is no logic to the Bloomberg article.

Bottom line: Tyler wants to deter persons from filling out the Census form, even though the Constitution says all persons shall be counted and the Congress shall by law, not the Executive by Executive Order, determine the rules: The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2).

Sad.

Respond

Add Comment

Are you trying to say that the Republicans’ motives aren’t highly suspect?

and undoubtedly an accurate census is important; accuracy is, in fact, the point of the exercise.

Respond

Add Comment

Having appellate judges and other lawfare artists micromanaging the census is, of course absurd and without constitutional warrant. By the way, the citizen population is enumerated in intercensal surveys, so the notion that there is something nefarious about asking now is risible.

Liberals are intellectual and moral frauds, as are appellate judges.

The fraud is the deterring of persons from filing the census.

Citizenship in the intercensal does not determine apportionment. The decennial census does.

If you were honest, you would say the intercensal census were adequate.

Do you know how embarrassed you will feel when the Judge discloses the materials on the hard drive and there is further disclosure from Commerce of correspondence.

Respond

Add Comment

Then why the need to fish for a justification and then lie about it?

The Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with micromanaging anything. It has to do with the view that unelected government bureaucrats should not be allowed to deliberately mislead the public and Congress about the justification for a policy change.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The actual issue here is about Ds and Rs wanting to make the rules favor their party. Adding the citizenship question will probably hurt the Ds, so they spin up arguments against it; it will probably help the Rs, so they spin up arguments gor it. If somehow the parties' asessment of who would benefit from adding a citizenship question changed, the parties would seamlessly swap sides on the issue.

zactly. and pundits along with them, while pretending like any of the rhetoric matters, or that only one side is engaging in the kabuki

Respond

Add Comment

That logic explains why during previous Republican administrations there was no citizenship question.

Oops.

Read the Constitution. It says "Persons".

Well from Lincoln to Bush II there was. Trump will be the first Republican President without it.

Respond

Add Comment

And you seem to be trying to make a point about 'persons'. All persons will be asked to complete the census, this hasn't changed.

Respond

Add Comment

TMC, You choose to ignore the Census's own staff which concluded that such a question would reduce Census compliance and coverage.

Choose to ignore facts? Choose to ignore evidence? Or, select what you know is wrong.

I propose that we put on the Census form a question of whether you have employed an illegal alien.

Maybe Don the Con wouldn't fill out the census. And, maybe farmers neither. Or restaurant owners.

They do ask it right now, on the ACS - https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/citizenship/

Yes they do. But they do not use it for apportionment, which, by the Constitution, is based on "persons".

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This is centrism in the worst form, where you just look at what both sides say, and not the effect of each action.

Adding the question reduces the quality of the results.

Add to that, that citizenship can be deduced from a no-question census or other sources. Big data is out there.

Just ask Facebook.

You need an official count for apportionment purposes for starters, and funding reasons as well. If you want a total on how many illegals there are, use your other sources.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

> If you can’t ask about citizenship on your census, as indeed Canada and Australia do, it is a sign that your broader approach to immigration is broken.

Maybe. It could also mean that the question is absent for historical reasons and that people fear that the intent of any change is tactical in nature in order to game the current system.

When you have a mature system the question is how to incrementally improve it without triggering unintended consequences.

Respond

Add Comment

Canada also has Elections Canada -- an independent, non-partisan agency that oversees elections and electoral boundaries in Canada. If the US had the equivalent, then the citizenship question wouldn't be so political -- because you wouldn't have one party trying to use the census to scare off Latino respondents and give itself an electoral advantage.

US elections are run in such an idiotic, chaotic manner that it undermines, or at least raises serious questions about, electoral results on a somewhat regular basis.

Elections, especially national ones, are a pathetic joke. Only a handful of us have any personal knowledge of the current president or any of the opposing potential candidates. Elections really are an industry, the preparation for which involves many well-paid mercenaries and vast amounts of money, some of which the candidates use in one way or another to enhance their own lives financially. Should they win, it's bountiful but even losing is beneficial. These pathologically ambitious parasites want public funding of campaigns so they can siphon off even more money. The media love elections because they aren't required to pay the actors. Paying attention to these charades is a waste of valuable synapse energy.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Far from your most thoughtful work.
Seems to me, this can basically be summed up as, 'despite all the tangible harms that will come from doing it, we should add the question because it seems superficially trivial not to.'

Respond

Add Comment

Dear Tyler: how are Congressional seats allocated? According to citizenship or according to population? What are the purposes of the census? You are a polymath; you are extraordinary -- so these questions are fair.

Respond

Add Comment

Ouch, Tyler. This take is disappointingly under theorized, and, as a result, orthogonal to the actual issue under discussion. Maybe you were just going for an interesting angle, but you can't offer political wisdom by wholly eliding the actual debate.

Respond

Add Comment

It must be exhausting for American libertarians and other rich-people worshippers to have to keep coming up with fig leaf excuses to vote for Trump and his low taxes. This latest effort is so incoherent that I honestly can't even work out how to rebut it.

Respond

Add Comment

Actually I don’t think the citizenship question will not matter much one way or another. I work and live with lots “illegals” and they aren’t going anywhere near the census in any event. They scrupulously avoid anything having to do with government (one of the reasons Trump’s claim of 1million illegal votes is so laughable, not one sin papeles I know is going anywhere near a polling place). The issue is just racist virtue signaling to Trumps base. I do have a compromise tho. How about we count the mojados as 3/5 a citizen, would 3/5 work for you?

"would 3/5 work for you?" lol. the mojados certainly 100% do the work for them. THAT's the question I want to see: have you now or have you ever employed an illegal alien?

You are absolutely correct about the major false premise about immigrants getting near the polls. Its a huge red herring. Just another public policy initiative pushed by the right that is built on a 100% provabably false premise. Both poisoned trees that Kaplan gives far to much credit to here.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Census was to identify Japanese and put them in internment camps during WWII.
While the 1954 Title 13 law adds stronger confidentiality, the nefarious historical use of the census restrains asking some questions.

Respond

Add Comment

The US spends $8200/year ($590B/72M recipients) on Medicare+SCHIP for a single recipient

The US spends $12,800/year to educate one K12 child.

A family of 4 that cannot support themselves at all will consume $58,400 annually in gov aid from medicare and K12 education alone.

A family of 4 earning $50K/year will pay about $6600/year in taxes--about 3% in income tax, 1.1% in excise tax, and about 9.1% in local taxes (including sales tax).

If you come here and can only pull down $50K/year, you will barely pay back the K12 education we collectively spent on your 2 kids (which costs about $307K).

We need people coming here that can pull down $80 to $90K/year or more.

A single immigrant family that requires K12 for their kids and medicare for the family will consume the taxes paid by 11 median earners.

The more you can earn, the more willing we should be to let you in. The debate isn't at all about high-income earners. Nobody is against letting another med school student in from Nigeria. The entire debate is how many unskilled people that don't know the language, can't learn the language, have an 8th grade education and will not be able to work should we let in...

“Nobody is against letting in another med school student from Nigeria”...don’t be so sure. Nigerians are still Black and most Tumpeter Swans don’t have the wit to distinguish. Also, who is going to fill these $25-35k jobs? Who is gonna cook and serve your Big Mac, clean your house, do the landscaping and, most importantly maybe, change your bed and wipe your ass when you’re too old to do it yourself.
Your numbers look at little off for my local conditions but kudos for at least giving lip service to the tax contributions illegals make. What you don’t price out is the social/economic value of having cheap, fungible labor at the low end.

>> Nigerians are still Black and most Tumpeter Swans don’t have the wit to distinguish.

Half the country is a Trump supporter, and Trump himself has said lets dramatically ratchet up the skilled labor we're letting in. Over and over. His ilk overwhelmingly agree with that.

If you want wages to rise, especially for the lower half, then you need to clamp down on "cheap, fungible labor at the low end". The very thing you want more of.

Drywalling used to pay a median wage: About $25/hour for a backbreaking job. These days, the jobs are done by bid (eg "We'll drywall this model of house for $6100"), allowing employers to pay below minimum wage to workers here illegally. You can far more working at McDonalds (about $14/hour in this area)

It's a strange place we're in where the democrats want more of that, and Trump wants less of that.

How about this: Clamp down on low-skilled immigrants, let the wages for these jobs rise, and if we have shortages, allow 10 or 20% of the workforce to be comprised by sponsored seasonal help that is kept on a short leash.

The flip side to this is we allow lots of immigrant workers under the table, wages fall, and US citizens go on the dole because they don't want to do a nasty job for minimum wage.

Regardless, the economics of low-skilled immigration don't work for anyone except the immigrant and those that want future voters.

I don’t want more or less of anything. Trump said he wanted more legal immigration from Norway....I’m pretty sure Nigeria would be on his list of shithole nations. It’s the Walmart question, do you want low prices, convenience and wide choice or do you want to keep wages (artificially) high? Choose. In an sense it’s the equality/liberty dilemma. Trump argues that it is unfair to force (white) Americans to compete with foreign workers on the low end but others (esp. high productivity elites on the coasts) could care less and always choose price/ease/choice/quality. So if you want it to be ‘fairer”, you need to restrict the liberty of those high productivity workers in Cali and NY.

>> Trump said he wanted more legal immigration from Norway.

Yes, his merit based approach to immigration (the same used by other countries such as Canada) gives your more points if you have a PhD and can self support.

> I’m pretty sure Nigeria would be on his list of shithole nations.

His merit-based approach doesn't care where you're from. The more skilled you are, the more likely you are to be admitted. Google, Facebook, Qualcomm, Microsoft and the US will be the winners.

> do you want low prices, convenience and wide choice or do you want to keep wages

Here's the thing: You need to earn about $60 to $70K a year to be a net contributor. Anything less and you are taking--you are consuming (school, insurance, etc) more than you are making. It makes no sense to import someone that will be a net taker, on balance, over their lifetime.

Sure, they might do a lousy job for minimum wage, but they will never ever ever pay back what we spent to educate their kids in K12. Importing someone to do a job for $7.25/hour is a big, big mistake. They cost. A lot. And you still have to support the citizen that isn't working. You are far better to let the company that needs the worker get desperate enough to create a $15/hour job to replace two $7.25/hour job.

Thus, your options:

1) Pay citizen $12/hour in benefits to do nothing, import a foreign worker to do a $7.25/hour job and pay $300,000 to send their kids to K12 and give them insurance. And then pay $300,000 for the same for the US worker.

2) Make the job worth $15-$25/hour via consolidation and automation, and employ the citizen that was previously sitting on the couch pulling down $12/hour. This save a ton of money. But it does require the citizen to work at a job they might not like. Tough. Everyone does it.

Yah you said all this before. But $15/hr is not so attractive when a Big Mac cost $20, which it soon will under your scheme. Why should I and my ilk, who are far more productive and paying beyond our own way, be forced to pay higher prices? Seems like a form of taxation. One you’ll need a police state to enforce. Maybe a police state is the point. If you only look at the social cost of illegal labor and not at the social good then it’s not a real discussion.

> Yah you said all this before.

So you agree bringing in someone that makes under $50K is a net drain on society economically, yes?

>Why should I and my ilk, who are far more productive and paying beyond our own way, be forced to pay higher prices?

Serious? You want to flood the market with unskilled workers so that skilled workers with excess cash can get cheap food and labor and unskilled workers see their wages fall further?

> If you only look at the social cost of illegal labor and not at the social good then it’s not a real discussion

What is the social good if someone is hanging drywall (one of the toughest and most backbreaking jobs out ther) for $8/hour when someone used to get $25/hour to do that job?

Thanks for sticking up for your fellow Americans here. I appreciate it. What I don't understand is people like Carlos. What does he think the Americans who aren't in the top few percentage points of wealth and ability are going to do as more immigrants keep coming in, year after year. They aren't going to keep sitting around and letting the elites run America's show. And their are a lot more of them than the elites.

Respond

Add Comment

If I have a sheet rock company and can get labor for $8 instead of $25, I can charge less/make more profit /spend more etc. This is a social good and a choice that thousands of your fellow citizen-business owners make every day. You might not like how the social good flows but that’s free enterprise. Lower prices are a social good that trumpeter swans get but refuse to acknowledge.
You never address this core of my argument. I assume you & Joan support raising the min. wage to $15/hr per Sanders et. al. as long as it was accompanied by a robust verification system?
I grew up in Trump country and now live with a lot of illegals. The difference in the culture of work is notable. Even decades ago, most native workers were looking to make the most money while doing the least work. In my experience the $8 immigrant will work better and harder for a third the wage. Why wouldn’t I hire them? And believe me, they notice that the hueros are soft and won’t work but would rather whine. They worry that their children will become soft like us. If you are unhappy about your economic situation move or get trained for newer skill instead of stomping your feet and demanding that we return the economy to the 1950’s.
I often get accused, as you did, with wanting to flood the market with sin papels but I’m not. Having a legal identity (being who you say you are) is the basis of a functional civil society and forcing employers and workers to be complicit in this corrupt system is corrosive in many ways.

> I assume you & Joan support raising the min. wage to $15/hr per Sanders et. al. as long as it was accompanied by a robust verification system?

No, the wage will raise automatically if you supply is limited at the bottom. In my town, as I noted before, fast food is hiring at $13 already far above min wage. My preference is to give unskilled US workers preference over unskilled immigrants.

If you allow under the table immigration, mandate high minimum wage and also generous benefits, you get very weird distortions that serves nobody well. That causes demand for illegal immigrants to soar (to bypass minimum wage), and it pushes US workers to the side as they opt to work 0 hours/week for $20K/year in benefits instead of work 40 hours/week for $30K in wages.

The best would be limit the supply of unskilled via education, which would push bottom wages up and greatly reduce the need for benefits. And then backfill with immigration as needed (at US wages) to allow businesses to grow as needed.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

So disappointed. I have been an avid reader since 2003 when I enrolled at GMU law, but this is the straw. I have patiently yet confusedly watched this blog's credulity-straining merging with all of the arbitrary and clearly rudderless positions emitting from the top. And I get that the "culture as atomized through the spectrum of very highly functioning autism" perspective is valuable for diffusing minefields, but really? Canada and Australia? With this guy in charge, and our peculiar institutional history, and how it is currently being whistled about? Don't see a difference Tyler? I have come to expect more from this arm of the octopus, but it is starting to reek of detergent, which is really bumming me out.

Respond

Add Comment

America desperately needs more legal immigration.

Why?

Because we lack the skills the country needs to grow the economy. Didn't we have a post on 5G a few days ago? How many Americans can create a 5G company today? China fails to assimilate their immigrants while we are the best at it. A competitive advantage that Trump has little understanding of.

How many people in the world can create a 5G company? Less then 1% probably.

I tell you what. Let's have open borders for anyone with an 130+ IQ, and closed border or everyone else. We could get all the 5G company creators while cutting immigration by 90%+.

Respond

Add Comment

That's pure, unsubstantiated BS. Most people the world over are not elite telecomm engineers. And the US has plenty of intelligent, creative people.

Respond

Add Comment

>Because we lack the skills the country needs to grow the economy.

Yeah, you might want to inform the historically soaring economy about that, because it hasn't gotten the word.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Australia's census is not the same thing as the US's. We may no long have one as the current government has in the past suggested switching to random sampling as a cost saving measure. The incompetent way our last census was run may be used to push for this change in a classic, "We can't do this because we're too stupid to do our jobs," move.

Respond

Add Comment

Yes, this has been my position as well. I favor open boarders, AND, oppose the census, yet in a world where we are going to have a census, I don't see anything wrong with the citizenship question. We already ask about race, religion, and how many gallons your toilet uses per flush; citizenship status seems mild by comparison on the 'invasive' scale.

You can have open borders when I can stop paying the taxes.

Why would anybody claim citizenship in an "open borders" country? All it does is put a target on your back for the taxes. Abolish the US State, so people can start their own.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The fundamental purpose of the census is to apportion House seats and the Constitution makes it abundantly clear this is to be based on the number of PERSONS, not the number of CITIZENS*. In the past we've asked about citizenship on the long form that only a fraction of people get (along with how many toilets people have and the like) but we've never asked everyone on the general form.
Just what is the point of doing so?

* Originally there was an exception for "Indians not taxed" and a partial exception for slaves (the notorious 3/5 compromise). Neither of these are applicable today.

Thus, immigration can be (and is) wielded as an electoral weapon.

This doesn't end well.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This is a pathetic post.

If you can’t ask about citizenship on your census, as indeed Canada and Australia do, it is a sign that your broader approach to immigration is broken.

Why? Those of us who are critical of asking on the Census don't object to other, probably more accurate, ways of determining the immigrant population. But the Census is supposed to be used to determine representation in the House. That's its purpose. Why do you think it's OK to make it inaccurate.

I know this is a hard one to back out of, but if your response is to attack the motives of the Republicans, or simply reiterate the technocratic value of a more accurate Census, it is a sign of not yet being “woke” on this issue. America desperately needs more legal immigration.

Really pathetic.

Why the sneer at "technocratic value?" It's not just an exercise in survey research. It has real consequences for how our government functions. That's important, whether the George Mason egomaniacs think so or not.

What is wrong with wanting an accurate census? What is wrong with pointing out that the Republicans quite plainly want to distort the results to favor themselves?

Just because it's Democrats offering the criticism, Tyler, doesn't make it wrong. Once again, you try to justify right-wing BS from an assumed above-it-all position.

And I am pretty confident that those who oppose the question are more likely to favor expanded immigration than those who want it in. Do you really disagree with that?

Respond

Add Comment

One possible consequence that hasn't come up in the discussion is a nuanced motive that can lead *legal* immigrants to possible deportation.

Falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen is something that can easily lead to deportation and even a bar to entering the United States. While some things like DUIs, or even worse crimes can be waived, it is *very* hard to get a waiver for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. Visa holders have been ordered deported for things like not reading the fine print on some loan applications that requires they affirm they are a U.S. citizen.

WRT the Census, I think a possible motive may be to get current legal visa or green card holders to check "yes" out of fear of something like the Japanese internment being repeated, and then get deported or ineligible for the next step (green card or citizenship). Similarly, scared illegal immigrants may check "yes" and then never be able to come to the United States legally.

Also, Tyler doesn't address the redistricting aspect. More concentrated power for Republicans opposed to immigration would lead to more trouble encouraging legal immigration, not less.

Tyler also fails to address the fact that roughly 13% of Americans are foreign-born, compared to Canada's 21.9% and Australia's 41%. Nativism bias is easier to combat when there are fewer natives.

Respond

Add Comment

Open borders for hot babes.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment