Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Or a redirection of federal dollars to areas with citizens that need them.

What a magnificent way to decimate healthcare access for every sagging rural community that relies on federal funding determined by their population to prop up their feeble infrastructure. Added bonus: you’ll put the local nurses, who are often based out of the retirement communities and tend to be exceptionally locally popular and among the most educated people in town, out of a job.

All they do is sit around and play cards all day, anyway...

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Or a redirection of federal dollars to areas with citizens that need them.

What a magnificent way to decimate healthcare access for every sagging rural community that relies on federal funding determined by their population to prop up their feeble infrastructure. Added bonus: you’ll put the local nurses, who are often based out of the retirement communities and tend to be exceptionally locally popular and among the most educated people in town, out of a job.

This is another good point--the idea that excluding undocumented immigrants (and, in practice, legal immigrants as well) will only hurt urban dem strongholds is a farce. A rough example: 7 of the 11 million undocumented people in America live in metro areas--which is actually below the rate of American citizens who live in cities (clocks in around 80%).

wease wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Or a redirection of federal dollars to areas with citizens that need them.

What a magnificent way to decimate healthcare access for every sagging rural community that relies on federal funding determined by their population to prop up their feeble infrastructure. Added bonus: you’ll put the local nurses, who are often based out of the retirement communities and tend to be exceptionally locally popular and among the most educated people in town, out of a job.

All they do is sit around and play cards all day, anyway...

Hell no they gossip like it’s an Olympic fucking sport

There are that many undocumented spread throughout those places that not counting them would decimate federal funding and lead to mass healthcare layoffs??

I'm late to the party here, but do they expect non citizens to actually answer census questions?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I'm late to the party here, but do they expect non citizens to actually answer census questions?

Before, yes. Now, probably not.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:Current oval office occupant notwithstanding, what is inherently wrong about counting the population of a country and tallying how many are citizens or not?

The main argument is that immigrants documented and undocumented will avoid the census due to mistrust causing under reporting in areas with large immigrant populations and a loss of federal services to those area despite their need.

Or a redirection of federal dollars to areas with citizens that need them. But hey... tomato, tomato. The underlying concern is that it might increase representation from traditionally republican voter bases and areas at the expense of the blue team as technically in our representative democracy model the elected officials are suppose to represent the voters and not just individuals who are presently in the country.

Not according to the Constitution. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

I am aware of the 14th amendment says, that's why i said "model" and not "federal law" or "the Constitution". This reading of that section of the 14th is what breaks the model (and arguably the founder's intent) through vote dilution as it was written prior to capping the number of House members at 435.

Here's a basic example that explains how:

Imagine two districts, A and B, each with 100 people so their apportioned number of House reps would be equal. Now imagine District A has 20 non-citizens and District B has 50. For a candidate to win in A, they need 41 votes (100 people - 20 non-citizens = 80 voters). For a candidate to win in B, they need only 26 votes (100 people - 50 non-citizens = 50 voters). This means that although district B has fewer voters, the voters are significantly more influential in determining policy at the national level. Sub in race for citizenship status and you can see how gerrymandering to use this effect to dilute the black vote was a big part of southern racism in the mid-20th century.

So the reason I asserted it breaks the representative democracy model is because it makes the resultant value of individual votes uneven between high non-citizens districts and low non-citizens districts. And because the number of House reps is now fixed, it's possible for states with low native population growth to lose allocated reps to states with the same native population growth (same number of voters) and high illegal immigration, further diluting the value of votes (PA vs. CA for example).

B wrote:Also, I'm not sure if your complaint is that communities would get funding/representation based on undocumented immigrants only or also non-citizen residents, because presumably both would be under reported due to individuals being uncomfortable cooperating with a census worker asking about their citizenship status.

My complaint is that the economic impact of illegal immigration is partially masked by counting "persons" vs. "citizens" for federal funding and I believe that federal dollars should go to citizens first (kids on the street in Baltimore or the homeless in Seattle) before they go to people residing in the country illegally. If states want to be sanctuaries, and the voters in that state approve it, that's fine. Raises funds to cover that decision, do not use the "persons" loophole to offset those costs to the feds at the expense of other states and voters. If the census question moves the scale towards "voters" from "people", that seems like a more fair way to measure for allocating representatives.

There's been some on the left that have been agitating for the end of judicial review given the bleak future they see for themselves at the Supreme Court. It would be poetic justice for them if the trigger for the end is instead Trump telling this SCOTUS to go pound sand because they weren't right wing enough.

I do believe impeachment hearings will become more probable than not if he adds the question via executive order.

I have a theory that because Democrats, or their leaders, have viewed impeachment as unpredictable in terms of how it would affect public opinion, they have instead been trying to use it as a deterrent. They reach out for documents that impeachment would make instantly accessible to them, get stonewalled, and then...stop. They call witnesses, who refuse to appear, and then...stop. They keep saying weird cryptic stuff about how Trump is or will eventually “self impeach.”

I think this has been, in their minds, a warning. “Normalize a bit, or we will pull this trigger and all of this shit you don’t want to happen will happen.” The obvious problems with this being that they have no clear definition of what a “you went too far” moment would be, and Donald Trump will only see those actions as displays of weakness because he doesn’t read subtext at all.

I do suspect that an executive order on a census question the administration has lost a Supreme Court fight over, and which it has openly confirmed is intended as a way to elevate the influence their voters have in elections, might do it.

More importantly it MIGHT be the line in the sand for Senate Republicans.

McParadigm wrote:I have a theory that because Democrats, or their leaders, have viewed impeachment as unpredictable in terms of how it would affect public opinion, they have instead been trying to use it as a deterrent. They reach out for documents that impeachment would make instantly accessible to them, get stonewalled, and then...stop. They call witnesses, who refuse to appear, and then...stop. They keep saying weird cryptic stuff about how Trump is or will eventually “self impeach.”

I think this has been, in their minds, a warning. “Normalize a bit, or we will pull this trigger and all of this shit you don’t want to happen will happen.” The obvious problems with this being that they have no clear definition of what a “you went too far” moment would be, and Donald Trump will only see those actions as displays of weakness because he doesn’t read subtext at all.

I do suspect that an executive order on a census question the administration has lost a Supreme Court fight over, and which it has openly confirmed is intended as a way to elevate the influence their voters have in elections, might do it.

not a chance on anything related to illegal immigration.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I have a theory that because Democrats, or their leaders, have viewed impeachment as unpredictable in terms of how it would affect public opinion, they have instead been trying to use it as a deterrent. They reach out for documents that impeachment would make instantly accessible to them, get stonewalled, and then...stop. They call witnesses, who refuse to appear, and then...stop. They keep saying weird cryptic stuff about how Trump is or will eventually “self impeach.”

I think this has been, in their minds, a warning. “Normalize a bit, or we will pull this trigger and all of this shit you don’t want to happen will happen.” The obvious problems with this being that they have no clear definition of what a “you went too far” moment would be, and Donald Trump will only see those actions as displays of weakness because he doesn’t read subtext at all.

I do suspect that an executive order on a census question the administration has lost a Supreme Court fight over, and which it has openly confirmed is intended as a way to elevate the influence their voters have in elections, might do it.

not a chance on anything related to illegal immigration.

cheeto only cares about illegal immigration in as so much his rednecked base will rally around him. he could give two shits and has been show to regularly use them at his properities

I’m a little unclear, if your reason for adding the census question is to ensure that the census itself is an accurate read of United States citizenry, what it means to say you’ll “get that data from other means,” or how outside data could be collated and used to produce those same results.