Vitter's Census Citizenship Question Making More News

[Ayatollahgondola]

Politic's Daily article:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10...immigration-r/

Simon Rosenberg, the founder of the New Democrat Network, opposes the measure. "We essentially went to war over this question as a country," Rosenberg said. "The Civil War was fought over how we treat slaves and whether they're whole people or not. The country made a resolution around these questions, which is that everyone would be counted in the reapportionment. It is not something Congress can override through law. Congress does not have the ability to change this. They'd have to change the Constitution."

[LAPhil]

This issue may not be as simple as it sounds. On one hand, most of us (if not all of us) would agree that illegals should not be counted in the census if it meant giving them equal representation in the system. However there are at least two problems with this. The first is that like it or not, they are here and they do share in the resources provided by the infrastructure and there's no way to separate them from the legal residents. Allocation of government funding and resources are often based on population statistics, e.g., education and medical services, and infrastructure, e.g., electricity, water, and gas. For example, if the government was to cut California's funding because of the large number of illegal aliens we would all suffer because there would be less for everyone.

The other problem is identifying the illegals to begin with. How does the Census Bureau know who is here legally and who isn't? Are they going to come to everyone's residence and check the green cards of all the Hispanic respondents? Obviously they can't do this because it would be considered racially profiling and would not be tolerated. The only way around this would be for them to ask for proof of residence from all respondents, and that would be completely impractical.

I would therefore have to say that there is really no practical way to eliminate the counting of illegals in the census at this time, as much as I wish there were. The only solution would have to be deportation, either voluntarily or otherwise.

[Ayatollahgondola]

All the questions asked are based upon the truth being the hopeful answers. No proof of anything is demanded, so asking another question hardly seems a big imposition. If their fears are credible, than so should all of us be fearful of giving any answer, and along with that, any question is too big a burden. Especially since they get rather personal with these questionaires, many of which have little to do with representational issues.
whether there is some sort of necessity or entitlement to services or not still doesn't negate the underlying fact that they will benefit from the representational standpoint

[LAPhil]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

All the questions asked are based upon the truth being the hopeful answers. No proof of anything is demanded, so asking another question hardly seems a big imposition. If their fears are credible, than so should all of us be fearful of giving any answer, and along with that, any question is too big a burden. Especially since they get rather personal with these questionaires, many of which have little to do with representational issues.
whether there is some sort of necessity or entitlement to services or not still doesn't negate the underlying fact that they will benefit from the representational standpoint

You don't think the illegals are going to admit to being here illegally, do you? I go back to my original question, how would we know? And as for benefitting from the representational standpoint, I agree that in an ideal world this wouldn't happen, but what's your solution to other issues entailed in not counting them?

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by LAPhil

You don't think the illegals are going to admit to being here illegally, do you? I go back to my original question, how would we know? And as for benefitting from the representational standpoint, I agree that in an ideal world this wouldn't happen, but what's your solution to other issues entailed in not counting them?

I don't actually know how many would or wouldn't tell the truth. On that same point, I'm not even sure how many citizens even tell the truth about much or all the questions. We don't tailor the questions to the general population based upon their willingness to answer, so to do so for one soecific demographic seems a bit unfair. I don't see any issues in not counting them. We should not plan our government around the illegals remaining here, but rather how and when they should leave. To do any different concedes some sort of plan to allow them to stay

[LAPhil]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

I don't actually know how many would or wouldn't tell the truth. On that same point, I'm not even sure how many citizens even tell the truth about much or all the questions. We don't tailor the questions to the general population based upon their willingness to answer, so to do so for one soecific demographic seems a bit unfair. I don't see any issues in not counting them. We should not plan our government around the illegals remaining here, but rather how and when they should leave. To do any different concedes some sort of plan to allow them to stay

You're still not addressing the whole issue. The point is basically that you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. It would be like closing a school or a hospital because there might be illegals taking advantage of the services. If the total amount of state funding is disproportionately small, everyone suffers, not just the illegals. If memory serves me correctly this issue came up in Congress a couple of years ago and even Tom Tancredo and various other anti-illegal immigration congressmen thought this was a bad idea and voted against a bill which would have excluded illegal aliens from the census. Another ironic element in this is that some pro-illegal immigration groups have actually threatened to boycott the census! This issue is clearly not black and white.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by LAPhil

You're still not addressing the whole issue. The point is basically that you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. It would be like closing a school or a hospital because there might be illegals taking advantage of the services. If the total amount of state funding is disproportionately small, everyone suffers, not just the illegals. If memory serves me correctly this issue came up in Congress a couple of years ago and even Tom Tancredo and various other anti-illegal immigration congressmen thought this was a bad idea and voted against a bill which would have excluded illegal aliens from the census. Another ironic element in this is that some pro-illegal immigration groups have actually threatened to boycott the census! This issue is clearly not black and white.

I'm saying include them, but ask them the citizenship question. Ask us all.

[LAPhil]

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?pag...s_iv_ctrl=1721

Senate Democrats Block Vitter/Bennett Census Amendment

On Thursday, November 5, all 60 Senate Democrats voted to shut off debate on the Fiscal Year 2010 spending bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and certain federal science programs. This vote effectively blocked the Senate from voting on an amendment offered by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) that sought to require the Census Bureau to include questions about citizenship and immigration status in next year’s decennial census. (Associated Press, November 5, 2009).

As FAIR has previously reported, this was not the first time the Senate voted to shut off debate on the so-called “CJS” spending bill. On October 13, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed “cloture” on the CJS bill in an attempt to block the Vitter/Bennett amendment from receiving a vote. This parliamentary maneuver, however, failed, as the motion to invoke cloture received only 56 of the necessary 60 votes to pass. (Roll Call Vote #320, October 13, 2009). After this original attempt to block the Vitter/Bennett amendment failed, Reid pulled the bill from the Senate floor. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, October 19, 2009). On November 5, Reid once again brought the bill to the floor and promptly filed a second cloture motion. This time, Reid’s procedural maneuvering worked: all 60 Senate Democrats voted for the motion, effectively blocking the amendment from receiving a vote. The vote was entirely along party lines, with 39 Republicans voting against Reid’s cloture motion, and one Republican, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), not voting. (Roll Call Vote #335, November 5, 2009).

The U.S. Constitution requires that the government conduct a census every 10 years to determine the nation’s population. The results of the census are used to allocate Congressional seats to each state and, according to the census bureau, to determine how nearly $400 billion is allocated in federal spending every year. According to data compiled by Senator Vitter’s office, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and South Carolina each stand to lose a Congressional seat after the 2010 census. These seats are ultimately going to be re-dispersed to four states with exceptionally high illegal alien populations: California, Texas, Illinois, and New York. This means that these four states with large illegal alien populations will receive more than their fair share of federal funding and representation in Congress at the expense of nine other states.

The Vitter/Bennett amendment would have laid the groundwork for reforming how Congressional seats are apportioned by disregarding illegal aliens and other non-citizens so that they are no longer able to affect both the outcome of U.S. elections and the dispersal of funding for certain federal programs. The question that true immigration reformers are asking, then, is why did Senate Democrats from the nine states that stand to lose federal dollars and representation in Congress vote to block the Vitter/Bennett amendment? The following is a list of ten Democratic Senators from the nine states listed above, all of whom voted to block the Vitter/Bennett amendment: Evan Bayh (Indiana); Tom Harkin (Iowa); Mary Landrieu (Louisiana); Carl Levin (Michigan); Debbie Stabenow (Michigan); Kay Hagan (North Carolina); Jeff Merkley (Oregon); Ron Wyden (Oregon); Robert Casey, Jr. (Pennsylvania); and Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania). (Roll Call Vote #335).


The question that true immigration reformers are asking, then, is why did Senate Democrats from the nine states that stand to lose federal dollars and representation in Congress vote to block the Vitter/Bennett amendment?

Good question. Maybe because for Democrats political correctness is more important than logic?

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by LAPhil

You're still not addressing the whole issue. The point is basically that you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. It would be like closing a school or a hospital because there might be illegals taking advantage of the services. If the total amount of state funding is disproportionately small, everyone suffers, not just the illegals. If memory serves me correctly this issue came up in Congress a couple of years ago and even Tom Tancredo and various other anti-illegal immigration congressmen thought this was a bad idea and voted against a bill which would have excluded illegal aliens from the census. Another ironic element in this is that some pro-illegal immigration groups have actually threatened to boycott the census! This issue is clearly not black and white.

Sorry Phil but I disagree with you on this issue. For one, until the true impact of having over a million leeches sucking on our resources is realized, we will just keep the status quo. And by requiring other states that have been more responsible and taken a hard line on the illegals in their state to pay the price of California not doing the right thing is in my mind a very unfair and selfish attitude. When you do things that are wrong and there's no consequences to that action, then chances are you'll continue to do those same things wrong. Our schools, hospitals, and infrastructure are suffering in part because of the liberal openborders attitude of so many in this state and until they have had no choice but to recognize the results of their actions, nothing will change. Sure we're all in this together, but that's the price we have to pay to get the truth out and smack in their face. Having the federal government give us an aspirin to ease the headache isn't going to cure the sickness only disguise it. And if we don't heal what is killing us now, it will surely continue to be chronic and kill the state at a later date. That would be just about the time our kids or grandkids will feel it the worst.

[LAPhil]

Jean, I can't disagree with anything you said here. This issue is not black and white, and there is a case to be made for both sides, otherwise I wouldn't have quoted from the article in FAIR just before your post. I certainly think an attempt should be made to determine who and how many illegals are here, but I think it may be naive, as I said earlier, to believe that we can obtain this information as a part of the census. Once we get the illegals out (assuming we ever do), of course this will no longer even be an issue. But let me just use a crude example of what I was trying to point out earlier:

Let's say you lived in an apartment building where you were the only legal resident and there were 49 illegal alien tenants. Let's say water was being rationed according to the population of all the buildings in the city. If all of the illegals were to be eliminated from the building count, the building would get enough water for one person even though there was a need for 50 times that much. Therefore everyone in the building would have 1/50 of his/her need for water. That wouldn't work out too well, would it? I would just look at counting everyone as a temporary fix until we have the illegal situation under control. I know it's not fair, but what else can you do?