The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BugI02]

If Trump wants to do it, it must be wrong/sinister/racist

 

[BugI02]

I'm starting to see crawfishing on the language, most recently from NPR

Now the claim is that the question hasn't been asked of every census taker because it was either asked using different phraseology and/or only on the long form

Even WaPo has resorted to calling Kashoggi a "contributing columnist" when their claims became unsupportable by the facts. Same thing on the citizenship question - back and fill

 

[Sylvain]

Did question 9 question your status, Visa, work document, resident or illegal.


I just realized in the last few posts that this is not about putting the question on the Census but putting it BACK on the Census.

I don't remember.I don't thing I provided any proof of status.

I just know you had to include anyone living in the house, even temporarily.

At first I thought it was only for US citizens (it seemed obvious).I remember asking to a census person if I had to be counted as living in the house even though I was a foreign citizen, staying there as a tourist.

I was told everyone had to be counted.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have been an adult (majority) for 45 years and 2010 is the first time I ever saw a Census form.

 

[Sylvain]

I'll admit it: Ditto.


Which makes this kerfuffle even more baffling.

You can see all the questions from all the different years there.

https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1990_population.html

Citizenship was asked in 2000, 1990 and earlier.

1. In what U.S. State or foreign country was this person born?
2. Is this person a citizen of the United States?
3. If this person was not born in the United States, when did this person come to the United States to stay?

Just not included in 2010.

In 1940:

1. If foreign born, is the person a citizen?

They used to ask how many slaves were owned by the free white males in the family in 1840.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll admit it: Ditto.


Which makes this kerfuffle even more baffling.

Importantly, there are certain court orders involved at the present time.

It has been on the census (in some form) on and off. But none of those times, that I'm aware of, has SCOTUS opined that the administration should justify its use.

It was not planned to be on the 2020 census until Trump took office.

As someone once said, elections have consequences. If POTUS for the first half of a decade decides it won't be on the census, then its hard to get it on there in the last couple years of the decade.

Personally, my concern is the rule of law as determined by SCOTUS. If this executive order is a foil that allows the lawyers to make arguments in emergency pleadings, then... ok... maybe. (Professionally, I'm pretty sure that doesn't require an EO; affidavits get done and pleadings get filed and then the court decides.) But, if the EO is intended to actually do something that courts have told the administration not to do, then that's a problem.

I understand why the question is on there - both the substance for it and the pretext - and don't really care whether it is on there or not.

 

[indyblue]

Back in the day, I think we used OpenCVS on a couple projects. I liked it, but didn't do much with the source code side.

I remember UNIX SCCM.

Showing my age.

 

[T.Lex]

I remember UNIX SCCM.

Showing my age.

I remember FORTRAN.

Ok. Not really. I remember learning FORTRAN.

 

[JettaKnight]

Importantly, there are certain court orders involved at the present time.

It has been on the census (in some form) on and off. But none of those times, that I'm aware of, has SCOTUS opined that the administration should justify its use.

It was not planned to be on the 2020 census until Trump took office.

As someone once said, elections have consequences. If POTUS for the first half of a decade decides it won't be on the census, then its hard to get it on there in the last couple years of the decade.

Personally, my concern is the rule of law as determined by SCOTUS. If this executive order is a foil that allows the lawyers to make arguments in emergency pleadings, then... ok... maybe. (Professionally, I'm pretty sure that doesn't require an EO; affidavits get done and pleadings get filed and then the court decides.) But, if the EO is intended to actually do something that courts have told the administration not to do, then that's a problem.

I understand why the question is on there - both the substance for it and the pretext - and don't really care whether it is on there or not.

I'm kinda there with you.

I get IndyDave & Bug's point, but lessening the flow of tax dollars (which by no means is certain) to CA and other "illegal rich" states isn't worth sacrificing the checks and balance system we have.

 

[BugI02]

Importantly, there are certain court orders involved at the present time.

It has been on the census (in some form) on and off. But none of those times, that I'm aware of, has SCOTUS opined that the administration should justify its use.

It was not planned to be on the 2020 census until Trump took office.

As someone once said, elections have consequences. If POTUS for the first half of a decade decides it won't be on the census, then its hard to get it on there in the last couple years of the decade.

Personally, my concern is the rule of law as determined by SCOTUS. If this executive order is a foil that allows the lawyers to make arguments in emergency pleadings, then... ok... maybe. (Professionally, I'm pretty sure that doesn't require an EO; affidavits get done and pleadings get filed and then the court decides.) But, if the EO is intended to actually do something that courts have told the administration not to do, then that's a problem.

I understand why the question is on there - both the substance for it and the pretext - and don't really care whether it is on there or not.

Again, I think you are not accurately delineating the issues the supreme court actually decided in order to make an EO seem like it would be an unconstitutional action. My understanding is that the ruling did not deal with the constitutionality of a citizenship question at all, but only dealt with the actions by Ross and the questions surrounding them, and that question had been returned to the lower court for study, briefing and arguments. I tried reading the actual SCOTUS decision but gave up around page 19, it is too opaque to even quickly determine what if anything they were enjoining, or if they were merely upholding the injunction of the lower court. I am unaware that any of the constitutional issue were in any way 'decided'. Perhaps you could post the relevant passages from the courts ruling that support your position

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm kinda there with you.

I get IndyDave & Bug's point, but lessening the flow of tax dollars (which by no means is certain) to CA and other "illegal rich" states isn't worth sacrificing the checks and balance system we have.

What about having congressional representation taken away from you and given to illegals?

As for checks and balances, what about limits on the power of the SC? Thomas Jefferson rightly warned of of the potential for the court to become a de facto oligarchy.

 

[JettaKnight]

Consider federal funding for medicaid, although in California I'm not sure if you have to be a citizen to be eligible. If California were to claim say 14 million people eligible for medicaid but the FedGov could make the case that the numbers do not align with the census would it not be evidence that California was seeking to lay some of the costs of its immigration policies (which are at odds with the US govt) off upon the US gov't

In that circumstance I would expect the gov't to deny some of the claim and I would fully support that. As a state, California has a broad range to adopt foolish policies but should bear the costs of such entirely themselves

But would that happen? I sort of see it as a pipe dream. There's plenty of funding for infrastructure, and I'd argue that that funding should not be tied to immigration status if the users.

And there's the potential that CA would come back and say, "The census is wrong because you F*** it up!" and the courts could agree with that assessment.

But how many of them are quality posts (Hi Jetta)

ALL OF THEM!



OK, probably none of them.

 

[T.Lex]

IMHO, getting that question on the 2020 census by EO isn't worth the constitutional crisis that may be Trump's reward.

 

[BugI02]

But would that happen? I sort of see it as a pipe dream. There's plenty of funding for infrastructure, and I'd argue that that funding should not be tied to immigration status if the users.

And there's the potential that CA would come back and say, "The census is wrong because you F*** it up!" and the courts could agree with that assessment.

[Why not a 'Hyde amendment' for the expenses incurred by a states illegals]










ALL OF THEM!



OK, probably none of them.

*.*

 

[IndyDave1776]

But would that happen? I sort of see it as a pipe dream. There's plenty of funding for infrastructure, and I'd argue that that funding should not be tied to immigration status if the users.

And there's the potential that CA would come back and say, "The census is wrong because you F*** it up!" and the courts could agree with that assessment.










ALL OF THEM!



OK, probably none of them.

How about we back that up a step to the point where if they are illegal they shouldnt be here?

I take it that your solution is that we should all just roll over for a coup by population replacement?

 

[BugI02]

IMHO, getting that question on the 2020 census by EO isn't worth the constitutional crisis that may be Trump's reward.

But you're OK with another branch being able to second guess what it believes is the Executive's motivations? No constitutional crisis there. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes SCOTUS justice's ideological leanings important when they shouldn't be

The case should turn solely on what constitutional issues are before the court, not on what the justices feel/believe the outcome should be. The language of the constitution says congress shall delineate how the census is to be carried out

The questions should be:

1) Is there a body of law by which congress has delineated how the census should be carried out

2) Would the re-introduction of a census question, which Obama unilaterally removed from the census, in any way violate the body of law congress established to govern how the census was undertaken

If yes for #1 and no for #2, SCOTUS' job is over

 

[JettaKnight]

How about we back that up a step to the point where if they are illegal they shouldnt be here?

I take it that your solution is that we should all just roll over for a coup by population replacement?

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how any question on the census has an effect on reducing the illegal alien population?



Solve that issue on its merits. Don't mix up the two.
Perhaps we could have been solving it with the resources tied up in this fiasco.

 

[T.Lex]

New reports that Trump will issue an EO telling the Commerce Department to figure out how many non-citizens there are by other means. That's the right answer.

The DOJ had presented reasons for the question that the courts determined were pretextual/insufficient to justify its inclusion. So, it was ordered to not be on there. SCOTUS agreed, and said that unless justification was provided, the lower court orders preventing the inclusion were affirmed.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/...s-go-to-printer-without-citizenship-question/

 

[BugI02]

Jetta, do some reading in the actual decision here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nship-question-decision-full-text/1583226001/

Read page 13 for sure, and then skim up to 18 and 19 (that's where I gave up) and then tell me that it doesn't seem like they were going to rule in the gov't favor. Page 13 explicitly acknowledges the bureaus right to ask a citizenship question so I'm at a loss to see how they can somehow be enjoined except on procedural questions

 

[BugI02]

Jetta, do some reading in the actual decision here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nship-question-decision-full-text/1583226001/

Read page 13 for sure, and then skim up to 18 and 19 (that's where I gave up) and then tell me that it doesn't seem like they were going to rule in the gov't favor. Page 13 explicitly acknowledges the bureaus right to ask a citizenship question so I'm at a loss to see how they can somehow be enjoined except on procedural questions

Edit: Since Ross's motives are what is in question, would a direct order from the President (EO) moot that question?