Census

Trump's Census Surrender Hints at the Real Reason He Tried to Add a Citizenship Question

Even if the president's motives were partisan, a more plausible cover story would have been enough to pass judicial muster.

|

Donald Trump's census surrender, which represents the third time the administration has changed its plans regarding a citizenship question since the Supreme Court ruled against it two weeks ago, was weird even by the standards of an erratic and mercurial president who governs by tweet, often surprising his own underlings. The reason that Attorney General William Barr gave for backing down (for real this time, maybe)—that the administration would ultimately prevail by offering the Court an acceptable explanation, but not in time to keep the census on schedule—is no more obvious today than it was on June 27. But Trump's remarks did provide a clue to the real reason (as opposed to the "contrived" and "pretextual" one rejected by the Court) why Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided, shortly after taking office in February 2017, that the 2020 census should ask U.S. residents about their legal status.

Trump said he was ordering the Census Bureau to mine citizenship data from other agencies' administrative records—something the bureau was already doing, although Ross had officially deemed it an unsatisfactory alternative to directly asking about citizenship in the census. "Knowing this information is vital to formulating sound public policy, whether the issue is healthcare, education, civil rights, or immigration," the president said. But later he added: "This information is also relevant to administering our elections. Some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter-eligible population."

The 14th Amendment says "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." That rule, however, applies to Congress, not to state and local legislatures. The Supreme Court has not resolved the issue of whether drawing state and local legislative districts based on eligible voters rather than all residents is consistent with equal protection and the "one person, one vote" principle. But it arguably is, which is why the late Republican gerrymandering whiz Thomas Hofeller, who was in touch with Trump's transition team, was so keen on the idea of obtaining better citizenship data.

As Matt Welch noted here in May, Hofeller concluded that redrawing Texas legislative districts based on voting-eligible population "would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites." But that project required more-detailed data on citizenship. "Without a question on citizenship being included on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire," Hofeller wrote, "the use of citizen voting age population is functionally unworkable." Not surprisingly, the states challenging the citizenship question seized upon the recently uncovered evidence regarding Hofeller's scheme as further reason to question the administration's motives.

The other, more commonly recognized way in which a citizenship question could disadvantage Democrats is by discouraging responses from households that include unauthorized residents. Census Bureau staff estimated that the deterrent effect could result in an undercount of about 6.5 million people, which could mean less representation and federal funding for places where illegal immigrants are concentrated—places that tend to elect Democrats. "It is clear [Trump] simply wanted to sow fear in immigrant communities and turbocharge Republican gerrymandering efforts by diluting the political influence of Latino communities," the ACLU's Dale Ho, who argued the census case in the Supreme Court, told The New York Times.

That may well be true, but all the administration had to do if it wanted to ask about citizenship in the census was come up with one or more plausible, nonpartisan reasons for doing so early in the process—reasons like the ones to which Trump alluded yesterday. Given the commerce secretary's broad discretion to determine census questions, even "we would like to have a better idea of how many illegal immigrants live in the United States" would have sufficed. Instead Ross made the decision for unstated reasons, then spent months scrambling for a rationale before settling on the Voting Rights Act cover story that the Court called a "distraction."

"In my view," Barr said, "the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the census, and could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the Supreme Court." If so, why didn't it do that the first time around? Trump blamed "meritless litigation" for defeating his plan to add a citizenship question. But a more competent administration would have anticipated that litigation and beaten it back in time.

NEXT: Rand Paul Plan Aims to Attract More High-Skilled Immigrants

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “If so, why didn’t it do that the first time around?”

    Because this entire administration is hilariously incompetent, and will shoot itself in the dick every opportunity it gets.

    1. When you’re a Cult of the Personality, you can get away with shooting yourself in the dick.

      The Teflon President: Nothing sticks.

      The Shit President: Everything sticks but it makes no difference.

      1. “When you’re a Cult of the Personality, you can get away with shooting yourself in the dick.”

        Good description of you anti-Trumpers.
        I’ve never seen someone with the effect he has – yall are absolutely consumed by Trump and have made a daily ritual of going through the motions of mockery via group think.
        You’ve completely given yourselves over to hate, and are far more bound in devotion than the Donald’s supporters.
        It’s fascinating – a cult of personality devoted to hatred and opposition to the figure

        1. Whereas nobody ever devoted themselves to hating Hillary or Obama, right? No nonsense about birth certificates or suicides of staffers or “secret uranium sales”…

    2. #MAGA

  2. 1. legalize immigration.

    2. common fucking sense for a nation to want to know as best as possible who belongs/doesn’t

    3. a question on a questionnaire w/no legal significance is terrible way to find out

    1. 2) Legal immigrants belong. Which is why they are legal. The question did not distinguish between legal and illegal. It has nothing whatsoever to dow with who belongs and who doesn’t.

    2. 1. NO.
      2. It’s your opinion and Trump was elected partly to enforce current immigration law and prevent open borders.
      3. The Census is one of the best ways to reach most persons in America. Lefties know this which is why they are freaking out that Trump wants to ask about citizenship.

      1. sorry man, Rubicon is crossed on immigration.

        >>>The Census is one of the best ways to reach most persons in America.

        10-year census ludicrous in 2019 this isn’t the 1800s where 1880 was the same thing as 1890

        1. Maybe it is a waste but feel free to change the constitution.

          One thing about Trump’s Administration is that Lefties have gotten a thorough schooling on constitutional actions by a President who wants to fulfill his campaign promises.

          1. >>>feel free to change the constitution

            here’s why i love you. totes in on maga and it’s fun to watch your Levin-esque stance … but the “following the constitution” gig is decades’ stale … (D) and (R) … nobody fucking cares anymore America 2019 is do what you can until they tell you to stop then keep doing it to see if they mean it then find the right judge … not sayin’ it’s right just sayin’ it is

            1. Dillinger, I love ya man, but I really hope you’re wrong here.

              If this nation has devolved into ‘will to power’ then we’re all fucked.

              1. You clearly do not understand your reference.

  3. He should have used the Mrs. Carol Brady defense: “Sometimes when we lose, we win.”

  4. It’s not the first time Trump’s stupidity has hindered his sleaze.

  5. Since the courts struck down his travel ban–not on the basis of the text of his order but because of things he said in his campaign speeches–Trump has had a reasonable expectation that the courts are subject to their personal animosity against him and his solutions rather than because of silly things like sound reasoning.

    Yeah, why wouldn’t the census question be about redistricting, etc. when the census is about redistricting, etc.? But why should Trump worry about better justifications for his perfectly constitutional actions when the lower courts are using his campaign speeches as evidence of thought crime–regardless of whether the text of his orders are perfectly constitutional?

    Want to talk about unreasonableness, is there any good reason to believe that Trump’s overturning of DACA is unconstitutional? Are we to the point where we think that something perfectly constitutional should be declared unconstitutional simply because the administration in question didn’t argue it persuasively?

    Are we willing to go the other way with that? If an unconstitutional law is argued persuasively before the courts, what difference should that make? Unconstitutional laws should be declared unconstitutional regardless of how persuasively they’re argued before the courts, and laws that are perfectly constitutional shouldn’t be struck down either–regardless of how badly they’re argued.

    1. “Yeah, why wouldn’t the census question be about redistricting, etc. when the census is about redistricting”

      This has been explained to you several times, so why don’t you get it? The census question was opposed by right-wing operatives because they thought it would depress an accurate count by several million. They wanted a bad count because they though that would lead to more favorable redistricting lines. Just like they want voting to be harder for everyone. Now obviously it’s difficult to tell people you want to sabotage census accuracy and put up roadblocks on Election Day, so nonstop lying.

      What about that don’t you understand? You do realize that a non-citizen still counts in terms of districting, right?

      1. Importing government dependents to increase your legislative power is absolutely a violation of my voting rights.

        Regardless, the courts cease to be legitimate when they act on the basis of mind reading.
        It is entirely illegitimate to even bring a suit demanding justification for having a citizenship question on the census before a court anyway. The case should’ve been summarily dismissed.
        But if this is the path you and your fellow travelers wish to take, so be it.
        Your life has no value.

        1. Importing government dependents to increase your legislative power is absolutely a violation of my voting rights.

          Please explain in detail precisely how your rights are supposedly violated by the free migration of people who don’t even have a vote.

          And by the way, nobody is being “imported”, like objects. What you are describing is free migration.

          Regardless, the courts cease to be legitimate when they act on the basis of mind reading.

          lol there was no “mind reading” involved in the SCOTUS case. The evidentiary record SHOWED that Wilbur Ross’s “VRA enforcement” rationale was a complete post-hoc rationalization, and NOT the justification for the census question.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist
            “Please explain in detail precisely how your rights are supposedly violated by the free migration of people who don’t even have a vote.”

            As soon as the left holds all three houses (Congress and the White House) they will legislate universal amnesty and whatever else is needed for their voting rights.

            “And by the way, nobody is being “imported”, like objects. What you are describing is free migration.”

            And yes, they are being imported, by people who’s only interest is their protecting their political power.

            “Free migration” ends the minute they cross the border illegally.

            1. As soon as the left holds all three houses (Congress and the White House) they will legislate universal amnesty and whatever else is needed for their voting rights.

              But that hasn’t happened (yet), if ever. How are the presence of nonvoting undocumented immigrants *right now* violating your rights?

              1. If you think shit loads of illegals aren’t voting you’re either painfully naïve or lying through your teeth.

            2. And yes, they are being imported, by people who’s only interest is their protecting their political power.

              Who’s “importing” migrants?

              And don’t you find it a little bit disturbing to be referring to people as if they are cargo being shipped between countries?

              “Free migration” ends the minute they cross the border illegally.

              So they’re not free people? Are they slaves?

              1. “Are they slaves?:
                No, they are free to go home.

                They are-
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species

                “An invasive species is a species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.

                The term as most often used applies to introduced species that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, or ecologically. Such species may be either plants or animals and may disrupt by dominating a region, wilderness areas, particular habitats…”

                1. You seem to have this dehumanization thing down pat.

                  First they’re like cargo, now they’re like weeds.

                  Do you think there might be any downsides to dehumanizing migrants to this extent?

                  1. Less downside than intellectually dishonest faux-moral preening.
                    Of course, superficial perspectives are your only option. Any examination of fundamentals would be a literally existential threat for you.

            3. Luckily, Democrats are dying as a national political power.

              Doubtful that we will ever see a Democrat President again. They’re fighting to be the biggest Socialist now and Americans still dont accept Socialism fully as our way of life.

          2. Please explain in detail precisely how your rights are supposedly violated by the free migration of people who don’t even have a vote.

            They are trespassing on infrastructure I paid for, using government services I am paying for, and are insured by public insurance systems I am paying for. They shift about a dozen Congressional seats to the Democrats merely by their presence. And under law, I am forced to associate with them in business, housing, and public places, whether I want to or not.

            And by the way, nobody is being “imported”, like objects. What you are describing is free migration.

            It’s not “free migration”, it’s trespass and violation of other people’s property rights.

            What he is describing is what Democrats always do: use the welfare state to buy votes and increase the number of people in poverty and government dependence. And fools like you support that kind of treatment of human beings like pawns under a kind of “socialist libertarianism”.

      2. “The census question was opposed by right-wing operatives because they thought it would depress an accurate count by several million.”

        So you claim, and much like when Ken asked Sparky for his sources, and Sparky threw a tantrum, cried and ran, I expect you will not have one either.

        1. First point : “opposed” in the quote above is an egregious typo. I meant to say proposed. (glad to get that off my chest)

          My first source is the 14th Amendment of the United States 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”

          So when Ken Shultz suggests the proposed question should be allowed because its about districting, he’s either being dense or disingenuous (feel free to pick, I can’t tell). The ONLY way in which the question affects districting is IF leads to a wrong count. It’s hard to tell if Ken understands that

          As for evidence of bad faith in the excuses given by the White House on the question, where do you want to begin? There’s their professed reason : Trump wants to better enforce the Voting Rights Act & help protect minority voters’ rights. Can even a Trumpian bootliker like you, Tulpa, repeat that with a straight face ?!?

          There is the late Thomas Hofeller, Godfather of right-wing gerrymandering and voter suppression, who first suggested this to Trump as a key policy goal (there’s a paper trail), because the question “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.” There’s Ross’ own trail of lies, where he decided to add the question and then tried to fabricate a reason. And there’s Trump’s own bungling logorrhoea recently. Could it be any more obvious?

          1. 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”

            Excluding Indians not taxed.

            That’s what undocumented migrants from Central and South America ARE for the most part.

            People who are here, but who are not part of our body politic.

            1. “for the most part”

              Sure, 2+2=5, for the most part

            2. 1. Undocumented migrants from Central and South America are not Indians

              2. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, pay tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

              So what is your point again?

              1. Millions of Mexicans and South American brag about being descended from Aztecs and Incas. Those are Indians.

                There is also a specific exception to the person count and that means that all persons are not counted.

                If you learn anything, learn that the more open border people push, the more Americans will agree that everyone should be counted but millions of illegals will be deported by then.

                You have lost, as more and more Americans want to control illegal immigration. They demand real action and Trump is one of the few politicians listening.

                1. loveconstitution1789 : “There is also a specific exception to the person count and that means that all persons are not counted”

                  So if we have a rule that says all jellybeans count except yellow ones, that means all jellybeans count except yellow and green ones, because there’s a specific exception to the count and that means all jellybeans aren’t counted….

                  What a true masterpiece of reasoning !!! I don’t doubt loveconstitution1789 truly loves the constitution, since it means exactly what he wants it to mean – regardless of what it actually says.

                  1. No, it means that if the task is counting jellybeans, acorns aren’t counted

          2. “So when Ken Shultz suggests the proposed question should be allowed because its about districting, he’s either being dense or disingenuous (feel free to pick, I can’t tell). “

            That’s your obsession.

            My question was about why the way it’s argued should have any bearing on whether it’s constitutional. You can tell because I wrote:

            “Why should Trump worry about better justifications for his perfectly constitutional actions when the lower courts are using his campaign speeches as evidence of thought crime–regardless of whether the text of his orders are perfectly constitutional?”

            —-Ken Shultz

            Maybe you didn’t read the article? Sullum also seems to think Trump’s census question was constitutional–if justified differently. That’s what the article is about. That’s what I was responding to–your obsessions not withstanding.

            P.S. Because you’re obsessed with some position doesn’t mean everyone who references it is talking about it or about you. Some of that stuff I wrote was about the travel ban, which was held to be constitutional.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii

            P.P.S. Taking issue with the observation that a census taken for redistricting purposes might be about redistricting is odd to say the least.

            1. Your weaseling isn’t a pretty sight, Ken. Given your quote : “Yeah, why wouldn’t the census question be about redistricting, etc. when the census is about redistricting, etc.?”, it’s pretty bizarre to pretend your post had nothing to do with the subject at hand : (1) The census question, (2) its effect on the count and districting, (3) the motivation of the White House – whether the question was designed to sabotage an accurate count or not.

              You seem to want to make excuses while holding the issue out at arm’s length to avoid the smell. But time to ante-up : In what possible way do you, Ken, believe the census question “is about redistricting”? Of course you’ll have difficulty answering, so help :

              (1) Without the question : 20 people answer the census. 19 are citizens; one is not. 20 people are counted towards districting.
              (2) With the question : 20 people answer the census. 19 are citizen; one is not. 20 people are counted towards districting.

              That is the constitution & long-existing constitutional law. So please explain your above statement. It might clear-up some of the confusion in your own mind about what you attempt to excuse…..

              1. “Error must be upheld, because it’s been wrong for so long!”

          3. Okay, now read the next section of the 14th Amendment.

            Section 2 adjusts apportioning the House of Representatives among the states based on how many male citizens of twenty-one years of age are denied the vote, in proportion to how many male citizens of twenty-one years of age are resident in a state.

            Without a count of male citizens 21 years of age, the government cannot possibly adhere to that provision. Therefore, the government has an obligation to ask about sex, age, and citizenship, in addition to a raw headcount. If it fails to, it is undermining the 14th Amendment.

        2. Shit, Tulpa, at least Ken and Sparky actually put out arguments and fight over them. All I see you put out is teenage snark on other people’s content. You’re a walking, talking tweet that fellates anyone that can actually turn the voices in your head into a coherent written argument.

          1. When has Tulpa ever said anything of substance, ever?

            1. In fairness, he does occasionally give a lucid argument or two. But it’s drowned out by the far more frequent shitposting that he does.

              I used to be mad at him, but now I just think he is troubled. I hope he gets help.

              1. I have the same feeling. Like there’s been some kind of psychotic break.

                1. Pretty rich when you two fucking clowns are talking shit about anyone…..lolol

    2. If states like Texas want to re-draw their districts to benefit Republicans and ‘non-Hispanic whites,’ why can’t they simply hold their own state wide censuses asking the questions necessary to get the results they require?

      1. Why would a state do it when their citizens forward billions to the federal treasury to conduct a Census every ten years?

        1. “Why would a state do it ”

          Perhaps the state isn’t happy with the questions asked in the federal census. If the benefits to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites are large enough, it might be worth the extra expense, especially if democrats and Hispanic whites can be saddled with the burden.

          1. the fuck is a non-hispanic white?

            1. You have to distinguish them from non Hispanic darks. Or Hispanic beiges or something.

            2. “the fuck is a non-hispanic white”

              What you and I would call a normal white. A white who speaks a proper white language like English, or Norse.

            3. More Democrat racism to divide the USA that has no specific race.

              I have yet to get a response from Lefties what race Americans are. You literally cannot be racist if you dont have a race that you are and think is better than another race.

              1. “More Democrat racism”

                Democrats literally can’t be racist if they dont have a race that they are and think is better than another race.

          2. The US Constitution gives Congress the final say on federal election procedure, no matter what states want.

            My advice is to cut your losses and pick another hill. Americans have latched onto illegal immigration and it will get worse for your position before it ever gets better.

            You could hunker down and wait out Trump’s second term as President. There will be millions less illegals inside the USA by then, so it ill set your cause back decades.

            1. “The US Constitution gives Congress the final say on federal election procedure, no matter what states want.”

              I’m talking about gerrymandering the districts so they benefit republicans and non hispanic whites. Who that matters doesn’t want that?

              “so it ill set your cause back decades”

              I’m willing to bet that even after the passage of decades, migration will be the most effective way folks choose to escape poverty and oppression. It can be a wonderful thing, too.

    3. “But a more competent administration would have anticipated that litigation and beaten it back in time.”

      Are we to suppose that the judicial authoritarians wouldn’t have made something else up?

      Wouldn’t have complained about something else, equally lawless and absurd?

      From the Daily Caller analysis:
      “Chief Justice John Roberts led the high court in concluding that the administration covered up its true rationale for adding the citizenship question. ”

      They weren’t even asking for a rationale, they were asking them to describe *how* they came up with a rationale, i.e., perjury trap.

      Now that Roberts’ collaboration in the Coup as the head of the FISA Court is being investigated, he’s taking the Resistance more openly to the Supreme Court. I look forward to watching Roberts impeached for his FISA crimes and Trump replacing him with less of a Deep State penaltax judicial authoritarian.

  6. Trump did not know what is the result it’s not a first time that trump doing stupidity

    Can America Afraid due to Russia Interference in Iran. Russia steady gives support to Iran against United State pressure. America wants from Iran to withdraw your plan to generate uranium for making nuclear weapons. But Iran has not been able to increase uranium production
    source = writenaregiven

  7. “One man one vote” is such a collectivist attitude. I thought of this a while back and it made me laugh. Votes have all the hallmarks of collectivist “property”. They are worthless yet squabbled over. Got me to thinking how votes should be treated de novo.

    Suppose everyone was granted one vote once they become adults. There’s one problem — we have no such concept in this country. Smoking and booze are verboten until 21, yet you can join the military at 18. There are firearm differences at 18 and 21.

    But press on, let’s assume there’s some mythical standard age at which everyone is granted one vote. Now that it’s theirs, they are responsible for it, and they should be held accountable too, and they should be able to improve it, just as they can improve their property. Votes should be transferable, just as other property is.

    Some things seem obvious. Votes are for civic improvement, so some kinds of convictions should degrade a vote’s value. What should improve it? Should it get more valuable as you age, just because you are a survivor? Should it increase in value the more you have been employed and decrease when you have no job? Should military service in crease its value?

    Then there’s the mechanism of increase and decrease. If you add and subtract, you’d have to use small values, otherwise people could easily lose their vote and even go negative. What would it mean to go negative? But using small values means that most people would never get much of an increase and would hardly think it worth the effort.

    Divide seems reasonable — it can never go negative or even reach true zero. But then you have to raise its value with multiplication, and that gets silly. How many times can you double its value before it outweighs thousands of other votes. Even if values in the hundreds or thousands become common, that still outweighs all the new fresh votes, and makes fractional votes too worthless to ever bother with.

    Suppose you work hard and make your vote valuable enough that it’s worth selling, a nice retirement bonus. How does the new owner increase its value? If someone owns hundreds of votes and does whatever good deed increases his vote value, does it only increase one vote, or all of them?

    Whatever. “One man one vote” is collectivist.

    1. “Suppose everyone was granted one vote once they become adults. There’s one problem — we have no such concept in this country.”

      Check the 26th Amendment.

      1. Applies only to citizens, not everyone.

      2. That has nothing to do with a standardized “adult” age.

  8. “an erratic and mercurial president who governs by tweet”

    The TDS is strong with this one. How exactly does he “govern by tweet”? The president governs by signing bills or making executive orders, and directing the executive branch agencies. That’s it. Tweets are not actions, do not have any power, and certainly do not “govern” anything.

    1. It is fun to watch the utter desperation of people like Sullum.

      #MAGA

    2. On at least one occasion, Trump has literally governed by tweet. By “governed”, I mean set official policy.

      Here’s the court transcript where Trump’s tweet was acknowledged as setting policy in court: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M3Y6vj3QlQpSdlYcCdq3BkbnnWIrEPlf/view

      Judge:
      “I don’t know how
      many federal judges have Twitter accounts, but I happen to be
      one of them, and I follow the President, and so I saw a tweet
      that directly contradicted the position that Mr. Gardner had shared with me yesterday.

      So now we have a court reporter here. I’m going to ask,
      frankly, the same question I asked yesterday to Mr. Gardner.
      Is the Government going to continue efforts to place a
      citizenship question on the 2020 census?”

      Joshua Gardner (US Department of Justice):
      “The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the
      President’s position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs
      and Your Honor. I do not have a deeper understanding of what
      that means at this juncture other than what the President has
      tweeted.”

      If Tweets meant nothing, the Judge would simply have ignored it and this whole census issue would have been wrapped up 2 weeks ago.

      1. Haha. You are sure hooked on what judges say.

  9. Jacob Sullum is so mad because he knows that the Executive Branch has wide latitude with the Census questions if there are to be anything besides a simple head count. The SCOTUS majority said that and remanded the case.

    I noticed the Propagandists are trying to lie and say the SCOTUS rejected the citizenship question.

  10. That may well be true, but all the administration had to do if it wanted to ask about citizenship in the census was come up with one or more plausible, nonpartisan reasons for doing so early in the process

    Why should they have to come up with “plausible, nonpartisan reasons”?

    Just about every executive action by previous administrations was partisan. Just look at Obama’s ACA and DACA, both designed to appeal to big Democrat voting blocs.

    The idea that an executive action is only legal if it is non-partisan is absurd. People vote for politicians precisely so that those politicians engage in partisan actions. Many people almost certainly voted for Trump because they wanted illegals and non-citizens to have less political power.

    1. Everything is different now because TRUMP. He cannot be controlled by anyone but his supporters and his campaign promises. This makes him super dangerous to the forces that want the Democrat Party to survive.

    2. Why should they have to come up with “plausible, nonpartisan reasons”?

      This might be a reason why.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)

      1. Yes, go on… how do you think that applies in this case?

  11. “The other, more commonly recognized way in which a citizenship question could disadvantage Democrats is by discouraging responses from households that include unauthorized residents.”

    That’s not “more commonly recognized”, it’s just the left’s presumption of guilt explanation.

    1. +1000

  12. “The kidney has a special place in the heart”
    D. Trump

    In the the left ventricle I believe.

    Just had to post that because it was the funniest thing I read all day.

  13. If states wanted that data then there is nothing to my knowledge which stopping them from doing their own census.

    1. which is stopping them.
      Stupid edit button.

      1. Yup.
        Once again it’s a post-hoc rationalization for the citizenship question.

  14. I don’t know why you think these motives are some closely kept secret when the rest of us understand exactly what he’s doing and voted him into office to do it; he’s figuring out how many illegals have stolen representation.

    1. Not a real thing!

      The research has been done, and this question actually suppresses responses, skewing representation as required by the constition.

      If you want Congress to stop representing noncitizens, amend the goddamn Constitution.

      And kill the Electoral College while you’re at it. You know, because you care so much about proper representation.

      1. No no, you misunderstand.

        The illegals don’t belong here, therefore they’re not entitled to anything. They are invaders and should be treated like they are spies or foreign agents. We wouldn’t count SPIES in the Census, would we? Huh?

        1. I have a funny feeling that the relatively minor infraction of being on American territory without proper paperwork is getting a lot more attention from people than it merits, especially those who are no great fans of law enforcement.

        2. I am considering volunteering to do the Census surveying for 2020 and inform ICE on every illegal I come across.

          I will keep y’all posted.

          1. Illegal what? All the illegal guns you have in Russia?

    2. Have you noticed at reason that trolls swarm the commenters, like you, that make ‘dangerous’ statements?

  15. a more plausible cover story would have been enough to pass judicial muster.

    Would it have been? Or would it simply have required Roberts to come up with a different rationalization for banning it?

  16. The claim that there are more illegal immigrants in states that elect Democrats is misleading. Many thoroughly red states — I’m in Idaho — have skads of illegal immigrants, most of whom work in agriculture. The same is true for many other rural states. The difference is that rural states wouldn’t benefit as much from gerrymandering due to the political composition of the state. Thus, the citizenship question would hurt states that were sufficiently divided between Democrats and Republicans for the counting of illegal immigrants to be politically worthwhile. And the truth is it’s more politically worthwhile in California than it is in Oklahoma.

    1. While you are likely correct that Red states also have loads of illegals like Blue states have, this skews smaller states having a larger population than they actually have. Even if they are Red states.

      Commifornia will be losing House seats because that state’s citizen population has left for other states, including Red states. A Red state like Georgia will be picking up House seats because our resident population grew massively since 2010.

  17. Oh, and nationalism is for pussies. I’ve said it here before, and I’ll say it again. I propose that we make citizenship in this country a privilege, not a right. Every four years we should have a Citizenship Olympics, where everybody around the world who cares to enter these great United States can take a battery of tests to see if they’re good enough to be a “Real American.” You’d have to write a 10-page (grammatically and idiomatically correct) essay on John Locke, build a battery, frame a house, do some calculus, do 10 consecutive pull ups, run 5 miles under 50 minutes, and play the Star Spangled Banner on some instrument (not the drums). The 330 million people who come out on top of this competition would be given citizenship for four years, regardless of where they’re from. All the losers — the fat fucks, dumb fucks, and lazy fucks who currently populate this nation — would be put on a garbage barge and floated to any port of call that would take them. Hopefully, they would perish at sea. If they don’t, they can reapply four years hence. That would eliminate about 75% of the American population, and virtually all of the southern U.S. Then we could repopulate this country with winners who actually represent the American values of thrift, hard work, self-reliance, and intelligence. All of the other shit sacks in this country can take a fucking hike. What most nationalists hate about this scenario is they couldn’t pass the exam because they’re too fat, too dumb, or too lazy. Oh, and NOBODY would be given citizenship who doesn’t have 32 teeth.

    1. That’s a nice rant, and I wish you luck in founding the nation you propose.
      Perhaps you should get outside your progressive bubble if you’d like to have a chance to qualify for citizenship in such a nation.

    2. Boy, this new troll is pretty mouthy, even if he reads like Nancy Botox babbling with AOC’s dick in her mouth. Which bunch is paying your troll fees, boy? A bit curious. Media matters? Think regress?

  18. If only Orange Hitler were as efficient and effective as Version 1.0… Amiright? 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.