« | »

Census Won’t Ask About ‘Legal Status’

From New Orleans’ Times-Picayune:

Census Bureau knocks Sen. David Vitter’s proposal to ask about immigration status

By Jonathan Tilove
October 13, 2009

The Commerce Department and Census Bureau declared Tuesday that an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to require the 2010 census to ask all persons their citizenship and immigration status would scuttle any chance that the census could be done on time and would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

The warning came even as the Senate Democratic leadership sought to head off a vote on the Vitter amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. An effort by the leadership to invoke cloture failed Tuesday evening, with the fight over whether to vote on the Vitter amendment, which he co-sponsored with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, expected to resume today.

Vitter portrays his amendment as a last-ditch effort to protect the political power of Louisiana and other states with relatively small populations of people who are either not citizens or are not legal residents in the United States, and keep Louisiana from losing one of its seven congressional districts in the coming reapportionment.

The decennial census, required by the Constitution to count all "persons," is used for the purposes of congressional apportionment and legislative redistricting. The result is that places with more people — regardless of their status — get more representation.

Or as Vitter put it in floor debate on his amendment last week, "States that have large populations of illegals would be rewarded for that. Other states, including my home state of Louisiana, would be penalized."

By far the biggest winner under the existing system is California, followed by Texas, New York and Florida.

But opponents of the measure described it as ill-advised, and in its intent, both unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department of which it is a part, said that 425 million of the 600 million census forms already had been printed, and that even adding an addenda sheet with the Vitter question also would require rewriting software code, reprogramming scanners and retraining census workers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

A statement released this week by six former census directors also noted that the bureau also would have to scrap its $400 million outreach and promotional campaign built on the simplicity of the census short form’s 10 questions, a campaign that in many cases also explicitly promises that the form does not ask about immigration status.

Adding this new question now, they wrote, "would put the accuracy of the enumeration in all communities at risk."

Under the amendment, the census still would be obliged to count everyone, but the additional information about citizenship and legal status then could be used to adjust the number that is used for the purpose of apportionment and redistricting, a move that would inevitably wind up before the Supreme Court for constitutional adjudication…

This is simply preposterous. Why exactly did the framers want us to conduct a census every ten years?

Was it not so that we could accurately proportion representation in the House of Representatives? So what could be more important than determining who should or who should not be represented?

As Sen. Vitter notes, as things stand now states with large populations of illegal aliens are getting more representatives (that is, more power) in Congress than they are entitled to.

The decennial census, required by the Constitution to count all "persons," is used for the purposes of congressional apportionment and legislative redistricting. The result is that places with more people — regardless of their status — get more representation.

Somehow I don’t believe the framers would have agree with this.

The Congress is suppose to represent citizens, not just anybody who happens to be in the country.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, October 14th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “Census Won’t Ask About ‘Legal Status’”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Well, still and all, when the form comes, I will mark only how many people live here.

    That’s all I want to tell them.

    If they come to my door, ACORN or not, I will only tell them how many people live here.

    Period.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Fudge up the number Rusty. That way it will outweigh the score of Mickey Mousers’ that get thrown in to get district lines rewritten!

  2. sheehanjihad says:

    If they are dumb enough to come to my door, I will tell them that six hundred and fifty people live in my house…on a rotating basis. If the census takers are the bozos like acorn folks, they will write it down and not think twice about it.

    Just my part to even out the stupidity of political correctness. Ya know, if you arent a citizen, you dont count. Period. Any congress-pig that uses illegals to increase their power base in their state or district should be arrested and put in prison for violating FEDERAL LAW!

    I cant wait for 2010….

    • BannedbytheTaliban says:

      But under the current system, only 3/5ths of conservatives count. Of course liberals and illegals count 7/5ths, that way it averages out to 1 each. See, everybody is equal.

    • caligirl9 says:

      Banned, is that some new ‘fangled new math there?
      I did poorly in math in public schools, so I am not very good with fractions LOL

    • BannedbytheTaliban says:

      Cali, it was meant to be a reference to the 3/5ths compromise. The way I figure it, the Democrats and liberals view conservatives as their slaves. We work to generate money, which they confiscate and give to their constituents.

  3. Sen. Vitter’s rational argument (and Mr. Steve’s agreement with it) is all based upon the understanding that the U.S. of A. is a constitutional republic undergirded with rules and statutes.

    According to the Leftist mindset, that is simply not the case. We are a democracy. All that matters is who’s hand is out for a handout – which can then cast a ballot.

    “Quantity has a quality all its own.” – Joseph Stalin
    .

  4. proreason says:

    “even adding an addenda sheet with the Vitter question also would require rewriting software code, reprogramming scanners and retraining census workers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. ”

    an obvious lie.

    But even if it were the truth, it says that once an illegal action has been set in motion, it can’t be reversed, because it would cost too much.

    These flagrant criminals (the democrats) have to be thoroughly defeated and many of them incarcerated to prevent their brand of criminal mischief from ever again gaining ascendancy.

  5. MinnesotaRush says:

    I had the opportunity to chat with a gal who was laid off, but got temp work doing census stuff. She said that they got one whole week of training (paid – $15 something an hour) and two weeks of work.

    Doesn’t sound to me as tho’ they worry too much about fiscal prudence.

    Doh!!!

  6. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    How come asking how many toilets are in your house doesn’t delay the census and make it more expensive?

    • proreason says:

      We must have already paid the “hundreds of millions” necessary to write the code, program the scanners and train the census taker to ask the question.

  7. Reality Bytes says:

    White? Yes. Black? Of course. Native American? You bet. Transgenderblender? Why Not. But legally in this country? R U NUTZ?!!!

    We can find a cow out of millions throughout North America that started Mad Cow Disease, but tracking 15 million ille – er I mean Documentationally Challenged Americans is impossible! I got it! Right! Just Checking!

    Can we get the grown ups back in now?

  8. VMAN says:

    I really want to comment on this but frankly I’m getting cross-eyed over all this crap. Conservatives offer sane rational ideas and they are called racist hate mongers.

  9. floradora says:

    I just LOVE the census bureau “motto.” ….. “Helping you make informed decisions.”

    Uh, why in earth do we need the CENSUS BUREAU to help us make “informed decisions?” Informed decisions about what???

  10. canary says:

    Nice to know the census costs each American 1 million dollars in taxes.

    “and would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.”


« Front Page | To Top
« | »