California AG: 'It Is Illegal' To Ask People If They're Citizens On A Census; Files Lawsuit

[Swordsmyth]

On Monday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said that he is filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the decision to add the citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
In a tweet, Becerra wrote: "#BREAKING: Filing suit against realdonaldtrump's Administration over decision to add #citizenship question on #2020Census. Including the question is not just a bad idea — it is illegal"

#BREAKING (https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw): Filing suit against @ (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)realdonaldtrum p (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)'s Administration over decision to add #citizenship (https://twitter.com/hashtag/citizenship?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) question on #2020Census (https://twitter.com/hashtag/2020Census?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw). Including the question is not just a bad idea — it is illegal: https://t.co/vW8sa7khq9
— Xavier Becerra (@AGBecerra) March 27, 2018 (https://twitter.com/AGBecerra/status/978465501599977473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

In his op-ed (https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Citizenship-question-on-2020-census-may-result-in-12783055.php) with CA Secretary of State Alex Padilla, Becerra wrote:

The Trump administration is threatening to derail the integrity of the census by seeking to add a question relating to citizenship to the 2020 census questionnaire. Innocuous at first blush, its effect would be truly insidious. It would discourage noncitizens and their citizen family members from responding to the census, resulting in a less accurate population count.
Including a citizenship question on the 2020 census is not just a bad idea — it is illegal.
More at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/28708/california-ag-it-illegal-ask-people-if-theyre-ryan-saavedra


Anything they don't like is "illegal".

[timosman]

979009861898907650

[Raginfridus]

979009861898907650

Then don't give a fucking census, you stupid twat! LOL

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9euEUm1S0BM

[nobody's_hero]

If there was ever any evidence that they are using non-citizens to deprive citizens of their rightful proportional representation in government, this is it.

[donnay]

The last census questionnaire was far more unconstitutional and intrusive.

[fedupinmo]

979009861898907650
Immigrants who are citizens would be fine. Funny how they don't mention that...


The last census questionnaire was far more unconstitutional and intrusive.
They can ask what they want, it is the act of forcing one to answer anything other than "how many" that is unconstitutional.

[thoughtomator]

Immigrants who are citizens would be fine. Funny how they don't mention that...


They can ask what they want, it is the act of forcing one to answer anything other than "how many" that is unconstitutional.

If you actually read the relevant text of the Constitution you would know that is not even close to true.

The feds are mandated by it to take an enumeration. Everything else is downstream from the last paragraph of Article I Section 8, which itself authorizes the creation of laws to execute these duties. The law in question is US Title 13 and a reading of subsection V shows at least three different clauses (1a, 1b, and 2) that would authorize asking about immigration status.

So if one is to charge unconstitutionality, one has to derive the objection from an Amendment. I know the Amendments quite well and can't imagine the applicability of any of them to an objection to the census questions.

[Cleaner44]

979009861898907650

So having an accurate count of citizens and an accurate count of illegal immigrants violates the government’s responsibility to conduct an accurate census? WTF?

[timosman]

So having an accurate count of citizens and an accurate count of illegal immigrants violates the government’s responsibility to conduct an accurate census? WTF?

If this is OK to be illegal in this country what is the problem with checking a box on a census? :confused:

[euphemia]

The 1850 Census and 1860 Census included Slave Schedules. They were a part of the Census, for the purpose of an accurate count. I'm not sure if they were included to determine representation or not. What I do know is that each slave counted as 3/5 of a citizen and they did not have the right to vote.

It's worth a look if people are interested in how these things were handled in the past. I guess if we wanted to have separate schedules for legal and illegal residents, it would probably come as a big shock just how many there are and what they represent to our economy.

[fedupinmo]

If you actually read the relevant text of the Constitution you would know that is not even close to true.

The feds are mandated by it to take an enumeration. Everything else is downstream from the last paragraph of Article I Section 8, which itself authorizes the creation of laws to execute these duties. The law in question is US Title 13 and a reading of subsection V shows at least three different clauses (1a, 1b, and 2) that would authorize asking about immigration status.

So if one is to charge unconstitutionality, one has to derive the objection from an Amendment. I know the Amendments quite well and can't imagine the applicability of any of them to an objection to the census questions.

What definition of enumeration are you using?

1. To count off or name one by one; list:

2. To determine the number of; count.

It doesn't include "classify" or "survey".

[DamianTV]

Fucking Kalifornia.

Illegal immigrants are Citizens too, and have a right to just come here, vote in our elections, and conquer us as they see fit.

[thoughtomator]

What definition of enumeration are you using?

1. To count off or name one by one; list:

2. To determine the number of; count.

It doesn't include "classify" or "survey".

It doesn't have to. The Constitution says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." In other words, Congress is delegated the power to choose how the census is performed. In the absence of a specific prohibition - of which there is none - the question is just as lawful as asking how many giraffes one owns.

It doesn't even say that the Census should be taken using a form. It could just as well be taken with a headccount.

I have a feeling your real issue is penalties for not answering questions on the census form. Since they don't actually prosecute anyone for not doing so, it's a moot question in practice. It's quite likely that the feds are well aware a court would throw out such cases. If there were prosecutions, then that would be a valid issue with deeper Constitutional implications. But as there aren't the only issue is whether the government is allowed to print a question on a form and the answer is yes they can ask any question they like.

[fedupinmo]

I have a feeling your real issue is penalties for not answering questions on the census form. Since they don't actually prosecute anyone for not doing so, it's a moot question in practice. It's quite likely that the feds are well aware a court would throw out such cases. If there were prosecutions, then that would be a valid issue with deeper Constitutional implications. But as there aren't the only issue is whether the government is allowed to print a question on a form and the answer is yes they can ask any question they like.
Short version:



They can ask what they want, it is the act of forcing one to answer anything other than "how many" that is unconstitutional.

:D :D :D

[thoughtomator]

Yes that is correct. I must have misread your original statement and mixed it up with the claims that it is unconstitutional to ask at all that the CA AG made.

[oyarde]

California needs no census . Once CalExit is complete they will not be needing representation or fed tax expenditures .

[nobody's_hero]

The 1850 Census and 1860 Census included Slave Schedules. They were a part of the Census, for the purpose of an accurate count. I'm not sure if they were included to determine representation or not. What I do know is that each slave counted as 3/5 of a citizen and they did not have the right to vote.

It's worth a look if people are interested in how these things were handled in the past. I guess if we wanted to have separate schedules for legal and illegal residents, it would probably come as a big shock just how many there are and what they represent to our economy.

As far as I know, it was used to determine proportional representation (the primary reason for a census in the first place). It was cheating then, and it's cheating now. It's one of the reasons the north resisted slavery expansion into the west. It would become a race to see how fast they could cram slaves into the new states.

What if California has 3 or 4 more representatives than it should, and those representatives should be going to red states?

[fedupinmo]

...and with those representatives, electors!

[TheCount]

What if California has 3 or 4 more representatives than it should, and those representatives should be going to red states?

What do you mean, more than it should?


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers

[Superfluous Man]

Which power that's enumerated in the Constitution is being exercised by the government when it asks a citizenship question on the census?

[Superfluous Man]

What if California has 3 or 4 more representatives than it should, and those representatives should be going to red states?

According to the Constitution, noncitizens are included in California's population for the purpose of allocating representatives. They can't vote, but they are still to be counted in the census for the purpose of determining the state's population and number of representatives it is to get.

That may be bad. But as far as the Constitution is concerned, that's the law.

[Superfluous Man]

The law in question is US Title 13 and a reading of subsection V shows at least three different clauses (1a, 1b, and 2) that would authorize asking about immigration status.


I can't find what you're talking about. US Title 13 has chapters, and subsections within those chapters. Which chapter are you talking about?

And, better yet, can you just quote the parts of Article I Section 8 that you think include the power that is being exercised by asking a citizenship question on the census?

[Swordsmyth]

What do you mean, more than it should?


According to the Constitution, noncitizens are included in California's population for the purpose of allocating representatives. They can't vote, but they are still to be counted in the census for the purpose of determining the state's population and number of representatives it is to get.

That may be bad. But as far as the Constitution is concerned, that's the law.

Legal immigrants may be part of a state's numbers but illegal aliens don't count because they shouldn't be here.

[timosman]

Legal immigrants may be part of a state's numbers but illegal aliens don't count because they shouldn't be here.

They should count when ICE tries to allocate resources among different states.:cool:

[TheCount]

Legal immigrants may be part of a state's numbers but illegal aliens don't count because they shouldn't be here.
Shouldn't is a funny word. A lot of things shouldn't be and yet are.

[Superfluous Man]

Legal immigrants may be part of a state's numbers but illegal aliens don't count because they shouldn't be here.

But for the purpose of the census, and allocating representatives, constitutionally they do count. For those purposes, it doesn't matter who should live here, but who actually lives here.

I can understand if you support amending the Constitution to change that. But constitutionally, that's the way it is right now.

[Swordsmyth]

Shouldn't is a funny word. A lot of things shouldn't be and yet are.


But for the purpose of the census, and allocating representatives, constitutionally they do count. For those purposes, it doesn't matter who should live here, but who actually lives here.

I can understand if you support amending the Constitution to change that. But constitutionally, that's the way it is right now.

Illegal immigrants may be here physically but they aren't part of a state's numbers, they don't belong here so they can't belong to a state.

[TheCount]

Illegal immigrants may be here physically but they aren't part of a state's numbers, they don't belong here so they can't belong to a state.
Who gets to determine who is enumerated and who is not?

[Swordsmyth]

Who gets to determine who is enumerated and who is not?

It's not Kalifornia.

[TheCount]

It's not Kalifornia.
You're making a whole lot of assertions with nothing to back them up. I quoted what the Constitution says. Where does it say something else?

[euphemia]

The first censuses were just head of household with tic marks saying how many women or men between this age or that. They took them on whatever paper they had. They had no forms. They did ask whether people were free or slaves.

By 1850 they were determining every single person, where they were born, marital status, mental state, etc. It's kind of interesting to see how the system has gathered more and more info.

[Superfluous Man]

Illegal immigrants may be here physically but they aren't part of a state's numbers, they don't belong here so they can't belong to a state.

Except, according to the Constitution, they are part of the state's numbers.

[Swordsmyth]

Except, according to the Constitution, they are part of the state's numbers.

No they aren't.

[Superfluous Man]

The first censuses were just head of household with tic marks saying how many women or men between this age or that. They took them on whatever paper they had. They had no forms. They did ask whether people were free or slaves.

By 1850 they were determining every single person, where they were born, marital status, mental state, etc. It's kind of interesting to see how the system has gathered more and more info.

Bingo.

There shouldn't be any questions about citizenship status or anything else. Just count the people. That's it.

Originally, getting separate counts of slave and free was also required by the Constitution. But the 14th Amendment did away with that.

[Superfluous Man]

No they aren't.

Article I, Section 2.3 Originally read:

3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

This was later modified by the 14th Amendment, which includes the following:

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,15 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Non-taxed Indians are excluded. But illegal immigrants are not. And notice that when reducing the number by the proportion of males denied the right to vote, this is explicitly limited to male citizens. Non-citizen inhabitants are still counted, and legal immigration status (which wasn't even a thing when the 14th Amendment was ratified) is not a factor.

[Swordsmyth]

Article I, Section 2.3 Originally read:


This was later modified by the 14th Amendment, which includes the following:


Non-taxed Indians are excluded. But illegal immigrants are not. And notice that when reducing the number by the proportion of males denied the right to vote, this is explicitly limited to male citizens. Non-citizen inhabitants are still counted, and legal immigration status (which wasn't even a thing when the 14th Amendment was ratified) is not a factor.

Illegal aliens aren't legally in each state so they can't be legally counted in each state, they are invaders, they do not reside in or inhabit the state, they occupy it.

[Superfluous Man]

Illegal aliens aren't legally in each state so they can't be legally counted in each state, they are invaders, they do not reside in or inhabit the state, they occupy it.

US law actually doesn't even say that they aren't legally here. It counts them as unlawful (not "illegal") residents. And the difference between unlawful and illegal is significant. They are not breaking any laws just by being here, but they merely lack any positive legal permission to be. They did break laws either when they entered the country or overstayed their visas. But there is no law that says that they perpetually break by their mere presence. In fact, in some cases, the law can actually prohibit them from leaving.

More importantly, that doesn't even matter. "The persons in each state" includes illegal immigrants.

That is what the plain meaning of the words is. It's what the framers of the Constitution and the 14th Amendments intended. It's the meaning that has always been recognized by US law. And even under the current proposed census, which includes a citizenship question, it's still the case. This census including that question is still supposed count all persons in each state, including illegal immigrants. In fact, the citizenship question doesn't even distinguish between non-citizens who have illegally immigrated from those who have legally immigrated.