Citizenship Question Could Invalidate 2020 Census

1. Wanting to include illegals in the census count in order to stack the Congressional count in favor of democrats is literally treason. How is this even a question?

2. @The Real News Network : Andrea would need to explain what she exactly means when saying immigrants and people of colour in the USA, for Black Americans are people of colour as well as full-fledged citizens, and not immigrants, while some, if not many, immigrants are also of colour, i.e., not whites, which some immigrants are. There should be absolutely no problem for any real American to answer a question if they're citizens and whether that's through birth or naturalization, regardless of colour, for they're all Americans. I've been asked this sort of question in the US and probably also Canada for some jobs I had during the 1990s, for these were employment that required citizenship, though didn't ask anything about naturalization. I would've simply answered both very honestly without concern about the question. If it was, f.e., "Are you a citizen and was it from birth or through naturalization", then I'd answer yes and no, respectively in the USA, whereas it would've been yes and naturalization in Canada, for Washington changed the law against recognition of dual-citizenship at birth only after I naturalized in Canada in 1981; but, cousins in the US promptly applied for recognition of their dual-citizenship, from/at birth, once the law was changed to allow this. When only had landed immigrant status in Canada, then I never feared to admit it. There's nothing dishonourable about it, certainly not inherently anyway. However, I don't really recall having ever answered to any census whatsoever, neither in the USA nor in Canada. If a census is only, strictly supposed to be for a head-count of residents, regardless of whether they're citizens or legal immigrants, then it might not matter, the question might not, that is; but, because there're "illegal", aka undocumented, immigrants/migrants, then I don't really see why they should be counted in a national or even state census; not until they become "legal", i.e., legally documented, anyway. That's all those people need to do is to become legally documented residents; not immigrants, not until they go through a formal immigration process, just as I had to do in Canada. I do agree, however, with the law requiring that voters must be citizens in order to be able to vote in federal elections, and the same might also be true for state/provincial elections as well, while not necessarily lower level elections. I just don't see why undocumented immigrants/migrants should be included in the census, and if non-citizen immigrants, so immigrants who haven't yet become citizens are included, then the census definitely shouldn't permit them the right to vote in federal elections; not until they become citizens. The census shouldn't be about voting rights in this respect. As for the right to vote in state elections, then I'd just leave it up to each state, for the federal govt definitely shouldn't butt its nose into this. Of course legal, so documented, immigrants should be includable in the census. I don't know if I was after becoming and while still being only a landed immigrant in Canada; having no clue either way. And it didn't really matter, for I haven't yet known of a truly good federal or provincial govt in Quebec, Canada, over these many years anyway. And the same is true for or of the federal govt.

3. There is no reason this will deter people of color who are legal citizens. And why should illegal gerrymandering be permitted by included non-citizens!

4. This woman is NOT answering the questions asked by the commentator. Talk about prejudicial intent…

5. why should illegals people in the country be counted, for the purpose of deciding how the government works? They are illegally here making them criminals. They are not supposed to be here and should not be counted period

6. Cuckservitives are suicidal by nature. They do things to lead to their ultimate goal of self destruction.

7. What hasn't been answered came up when Ross admitted to Congress he hadn't followed the law and informed Congress the question was to be added. How, if at all, was that resolved.

8. Since this lady doesn't seem to know why I'll tell her: It's to distinguish between citizens who have a right to be represented in Congress and foreigners or non-citizens who do not have the right to be represented in Congress but still do under current law. This is something that has to change.

9. Imagine it being wrong to ask people who live in a country if they're a citizen of that country. Only international criminals would be against it. But since Real News Network and this illiterate woman are UN-American, I can understand the legal acrobatics I just heard to justify the omission of the question. What are illegals afraid of? Every citizen should be PROUD to answer yes to that question. If you can’t answer YES you don't belong here, you're a criminal and must be deported.

10. lol it's a fucking census. a "citizenship question" is not a bad thing and is a question that is on the Canadian and other census and in a lot of other social contract oriented paperwork such as TAXES. They do not even ask if you are legally a citizen or legally a resident.

11. Why would the citizenship question depress the count of native-born blacks?

Comments are closed.