Poll: Should proof of citizenship be required to be counted in the census?

[Oldskool]

I was reading this article about several Latino groups calling for illegals to boycott the 2010 census, and it made me think of how badly this could screw with not only the census numbers but with the allocated federal funds. This is allot of political clout for a group of people to have who can't legally vote.

So here's the question du jour; Should the federal government require proof of citizenship (with a few exceptions) for a person to be tallied in the upcoming census? Either way, what reasoning do you have?

[Braxford]

Proof of citizenship should be required. It just makes sense. The census helps the government to see the demographic changes in America and give the government a sense of how Americans are doing and prospering. The census also has a lot to do with electoral votes and how they are counted due to population. In no way should people who are illegally in America have any influence on how that is affected. It just makes sense that only citizens should participate.

[SkinsNumberOne]

You have yes and no backwards

[Cooked Crack]

Sounds like too much of a hassle. Will someone come to my door and ask to see my birth certificate or passport?

[PokerPacker]

You have yes and no backwards

I suppose this poll is destined to fail, then, isn't it?

[Elessar78]

It'd just cause more problems. How many red-blooded American citizens have no proof of their citizenship. Probably a lot more than you can imagine. Plus, when they come to your door are you gonna dig around through your filing cabinet/safe to pull out birth certificate/passport/naturalization papers?

Non-citizens can be accounted for using statistical methods.

[Oldskool]

I suppose this poll is destined to fail, then, isn't it?

Hopefully I can get a mod to fix it. Either way, stay on topic please

[SkinsNumberOne]

It's fixed, but someone voted for "Option 2" whatever that was to him/her. So maybe subtract 1 from Option 2 unless he/she speaks up on what they wanted to do.

*

As for the topic, I choose d. There's no point in putting out a census if it's not going to get an accurate count. I am not at all sure about this move, but I think the churches that are encouraging illegals not to register need to be answerable to something? I mean, the church is not supposed to interfere with the workings of the state. Obviously it's not a good precedent when either side goes after the other, but in this case, the church made the first move. I understand you can argue that from the church's perspective it is their moral imperative to do what they think is right, but I'd like them to have a solid foundation for their actions. This:

Asking immigrants to be counted without giving them a chance to become legal residents counters church teachings, says the Rev. Miguel Rivera

doesn't qualify. What Church teachings are being broken? Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds asinine.

I don't understand how illegals who are here feel like they are entitled to complain. They chose to illegally enter the US, which they had no right to do. To do that, they took a risk, and should have to live with the consequences of that risk. If they get ANY benefits, or are even allowed to stay, they should be happy and thankful. To make demands?? On the surface, it boggles the mind, and I try to stay pretty even-handed about most issues I think.

[PokerPacker]

hey, my vote was erased!

[Larry]

Somewhat conflicted.

I think the census should only count citizens. (Well, and, let's say they should count legal non-citizens in a separate category.)

In fact, I've just changed my mind. hey should count citizens, legals, and illegals, in seperate category.

What they do with the numbers should depend on what it's being used for.

Obviously ,when they're drawing up Congressional districts, only citizens should count.

But when they're allocating things like welfare, or planning for the new hospital, then maybe they might want to count the legals, and maybe the illegals, too.

(Although I don't know about the illegals, though. IMO, illegals shouldn't be getting government services of any kind. But it seems to be a fact that they are, at least in some cases.)

----------

My conflict comes from two reasons:

I'm not certain that people should be required to show

ID

for the census.

Face it: There isn't any handy method of showing citizenship. (I think there

should

be. But it's a fact that right now, there isn't.)

----------

But short answer is: The Census should count everybody. The purpose of the Census is to gather data, and you should never intentionally gather inaccurate data.

But I think the illegals should be counted as illegals, so that they can be ignored when performing certain government tasks which, by right, should only factor citizens.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm also conflicted. No way do they get everyone. Lots of people won't do the census as they think it's some conspiracy that will point out some illegal activity they are doing, or verify their address. Trust me, there are a lot of those people out there. So even if we laxed the citizenship requirement we'd still have very few illegals filling out the census.

And there's the problem of proving your citizenship. That could be an issue for many unless they've got a passport or have their paperwork in order. You'd be surprised how many couldn't do it easily and would just give up.

But I do think it's necessary to get proper counts of EVERYONE and where they live, go to school, etc...

[twa]

Put me down for I don't care and would prefer to skip it and the bs that it involves.

[Corcaigh]

Kinda depends on what you are going to to with the data.

I am not a citizen. I am a legal permanent resident. I part own a business. I own property. I pay taxes (lots of them). My kids attend local public schools and will attend university here. I'm not going anywhere, at least anytime soon. I expect to retire and die here.

Why would you not count me?

[Springfield]

But short answer is: The Census should count everybody. The purpose of the Census is to gather data, and you should never intentionally gather inaccurate data.

But I think the illegals should be counted as illegals, so that they can be ignored when performing certain government tasks which, by right, should only factor citizens.

This, buried at the end of a very nicely stated post is the correct answer.

[Springfield]

Kinda depends on what you are going to to with the data.

I am not a citizen. I am a legal permanent resident. I part own a business. I own property. I pay taxes (lots of them). My kids attend local public schools and will attend university here. I'm not going anywhere, at least anytime soon. I expect to retire and die here.

Why would you not count me?

Precisely...

When the census is conducted, they must count everyone. If they don't, they won't get accurate data if they don't. Now I think that everyone should declare their status though, so that way we can have an accurate description of the make up of our country.

[Oldskool]

Kinda depends on what you are going to to with the data.

I am not a citizen. I am a legal permanent resident.

For the argument at hand if you are with the "citizens get counted" faction, I'd say this qualifies. I stated in the original post there would be a few exceptions, and I believe that legal aliens and permanent residents qualify under this proviso.

[Springfield]

For the argument at hand if you are with the "citizens get counted" faction, I'd say this qualifies. I stated in the original post there would be a few exceptions, and I believe that legal aliens and permanent residents qualify under this proviso.

I think it would be helpful to both sides of the aisle to know how many illegals are in this country (and where they are located). I can only see a positive to including illegals in with the census data.

[Oldskool]

I think it would be helpful to both sides of the aisle to know how many illegals are in this country (and where they are located). I can only see a positive to including illegals in with the census data.

Under the current format, the census takers do not take into account your residency status, so there are really guestimating.

[Springfield]

Under the current format, the census takers do not take into account your residency status, so there are really guestimating.

I realize this. That's why I think it would be beneficial to the government (both blue and red) to know what their status was. They could essentially track where they were more concentrated, where they were migrating to, where they were migrating from, etc.

I also understand though, that it would probably be rather difficult for somebody to fill out "illegal" on an official government document. If there was a way to do it, I think it would help all around.

I'm a stat lover though. I find the census highly interesting and the more information at hand the better.

[Larry]

Under the current format, the census takers do not take into account your residency status, so there are really guestimating.

Well, I assume that, as a practical matter, the only thing he can do is take the person's word for it, anyway.

[Oldskool]

I realize this. That's why I think it would be beneficial to the government (both blue and red) to know what their status was. They could essentially track where they were more concentrated, where they were migrating to, where they were migrating from, etc.

I also understand though, that it would probably be rather difficult for somebody to fill out "illegal" on an official government document. If there was a way to do it, I think it would help all around.

I'm a stat lover though. I find the census highly interesting and the more information at hand the better.

I think in this case, it would involve the very delicate and currently politically taboo need for a national ID card.

I'm a stat nerd myself, so having more info that what the current census takes would be ok by me.

[aszumilo]

I said yes, because the government uses this to determine, among other things, where the money goes. If legal or illegal aliens are not counted, it could cause some areas to get less money for services and put even more of a strain on local economies. However, if the Latinos want to boycott the census I say let them, it could backfire on them, with reduced money for services, etc.. Dumb idea.

[Springfield]

I think in this case, it would involve the very delicate and currently politically taboo need for a national ID card.

I'm a stat nerd myself, so having more info that what the current census takes would be ok by me.

So I think we are in agreement?

Would be nice to have but impossible to implement.

[SUSkinsFan]

No. The Constitution specifies that all persons in a state be counted, not just legal ones...

[Hubbs]

Proof of citizenship should be required. It just makes sense. The census helps the government to see the demographic changes in America and give the government a sense of how Americans are doing and prospering. The census also has a lot to do with electoral votes and how they are counted due to population. In no way should people who are illegally in America have any influence on how that is affected. It just makes sense that only citizens should participate.

Erm... you know those two things are pretty much contradictory, right?