4 ms·

Both sides have ulterior motives. Counting illegal immigrants in the census helps Democrats because liberal states have more of them. This is just a fact. You

by woo49 6y ago

Both sides have ulterior motives. Counting illegal immigrants in the census helps Democrats because liberal states have more of them. This is just a fact. You may think we should still count as many of them in the census, that's fine. But don't pretend there is no issue with one side of the argument. Mentioning motives of one side but not the other is naive. It also prevents us from having a real conversation about the trade offs at hand.

atoav 6y ago
Not American but I think a census should reflect reality. This means: which people (regardless of legal status) are currently living in an given area. How this then translates into policy is an entirely different question, but essentially misrepresenting what should be objective reality for cheap political points is asking for trouble. A bit like closing your eyes: it doesn't make things go away.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  American, and agree. It should also include the average amount of tourists (steady state) so that the presence of more people in an area get sufficient resources (to serve citizens and non-citizens alike).
maxerickson 6y ago
That's not an ulterior motive, it's a direct motive for counting everybody. An ulterior motive would be expressing support for a counting method with a statement about the technical superiority of the method, but really preferring it because of some bias inherent in it. The "ulterior" part comes from the motivation being different than what is publicly expressed.
eganist 6y ago
Counting all people who live in the United States of America as well as the distribution of people is the mandate of the Census. The status of said people is irrelevant - taxes are still paid, infrastructure decisions must still be made, etc., so whether any one side benefits more than the other by sticking to the letter of the mandate is irrelevant. When deviating from the mandate, it's important to consider motives. When aligning with the mandate, unless it's clear that the mandate is ill-formed (which it isn't in this case for the reasons I've given above), motives for enforcing the mandate are, as said above, irrelevant.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
But that’s the whole point of the census. I agree Democrats wouldn’t care if it weren’t politically beneficial, but in this case their interest and the law coincide. Everyone, legal resident or not, should be counted. There’s zero legal /constitutional question about it. If you’re going to get angry every time someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, I am afraid you’re in for a lifetime of disappointment. Now if Democrats were trying to increase census coverage in Florida, Texas, NY, and IL while playing games to get census takers to skip traversing the vast emptiness of Montana and Wyoming, I’d agree that you have a point. But that’s not the case.
- woo49 6y ago
  It’s not as simple. Essentially the vote of two US citizens does not count equally if you count everyone. If one lives in an area with more illegal immigrants, that US citizens votes foe him/her but also for the non voters in the area. This is not a ‘one person one vote’ situation and it’s a real concern if you believe in equal representation. Ideally you’d have a citizenship question and you count only citizens for electoral college allocation and everyone for non electoral college matters. But that creates concerns of undercounting etc.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    That is not how the US census had ever worked. See the 3/5 Compromise.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > Essentially the vote of two US citizens does not count equally if you count everyone. It's not just about the vote. Redistricting is one aspect of it, sure, but it's not the sole reason a census is done. It's done primarily to predict tax revenues, predict infrastructure needs, predict growth patterns, support municipal planning, etc., all of which are necessities for projects that often span decades. If you're concerned about the vote, deal with the challenge posed by the electoral college instead. The Census is used for too many other things to be manipulated for the sake of political interests by one party.
  - 6y ago
spacemanmatt 6y ago
Oh look, a both-sides sock puppet. Right where I expect to find one, too.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
TBH, I don't think it really matters. I mean, take voting for example. Democrats have a clear ulterior motive to expand voting, Republicans have a clear ulterior motive to make voting as difficult as possible. But, TBH, I don't really care much about their motives, because in a democracy we should be trying to get the most eligible people as possible to vote. Republicans are trying to prevent people from voting because they believe the more voting is expanded, the harder it is to get a majority of people to vote for them. Well, tough shit. To see what has happened in Texas, with dropboxes limited to one-per-county, I feel like the previous argument against voter fraud has kind of gone out the window, and now it's just blatant - there is no rational reason the giant county that contains Houston should be limited to the same number of dropboxes as a rural county with orders of magnitude fewer people.
nonplussed 6y ago
> liberal states have more [illegal immigrants] I was skeptical about this so I looked it up. Nevada and Texas are the top 2 states on a per capita basis. I'd hardly call those liberal states. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauth...
NelsonMinar 6y ago
The entire purpose of the census is to count everyone. Citizens and non-citizens. Your attempt to make a "both sides" argument here is pitting the very constitutional purpose of the census against a racist party intent on suppressing representation for minorities.

by woo49 6y ago

atoav 6y ago

Not American but I think a census should reflect reality. This means: which people (regardless of legal status) are currently living in an given area. How this then translates into policy is an entirely different question, but essentially misrepresenting what should be objective reality for cheap political points is asking for trouble. A bit like closing your eyes: it doesn't make things go away.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
American, and agree. It should also include the average amount of tourists (steady state) so that the presence of more people in an area get sufficient resources (to serve citizens and non-citizens alike).

maxerickson 6y ago

That's not an ulterior motive, it's a direct motive for counting everybody. An ulterior motive would be expressing support for a counting method with a statement about the technical superiority of the method, but really preferring it because of some bias inherent in it. The "ulterior" part comes from the motivation being different than what is publicly expressed.

eganist 6y ago

Counting all people who live in the United States of America as well as the distribution of people is the mandate of the Census. The status of said people is irrelevant - taxes are still paid, infrastructure decisions must still be made, etc., so whether any one side benefits more than the other by sticking to the letter of the mandate is irrelevant. When deviating from the mandate, it's important to consider motives. When aligning with the mandate, unless it's clear that the mandate is ill-formed (which it isn't in this case for the reasons I've given above), motives for enforcing the mandate are, as said above, irrelevant.

ComputerGuru 6y ago

But that’s the whole point of the census. I agree Democrats wouldn’t care if it weren’t politically beneficial, but in this case their interest and the law coincide. Everyone, legal resident or not, should be counted. There’s zero legal /constitutional question about it. If you’re going to get angry every time someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, I am afraid you’re in for a lifetime of disappointment. Now if Democrats were trying to increase census coverage in Florida, Texas, NY, and IL while playing games to get census takers to skip traversing the vast emptiness of Montana and Wyoming, I’d agree that you have a point. But that’s not the case.

woo49 6y ago
It’s not as simple. Essentially the vote of two US citizens does not count equally if you count everyone. If one lives in an area with more illegal immigrants, that US citizens votes foe him/her but also for the non voters in the area. This is not a ‘one person one vote’ situation and it’s a real concern if you believe in equal representation. Ideally you’d have a citizenship question and you count only citizens for electoral college allocation and everyone for non electoral college matters. But that creates concerns of undercounting etc.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  That is not how the US census had ever worked. See the 3/5 Compromise.
- eganist 6y ago
  > Essentially the vote of two US citizens does not count equally if you count everyone. It's not just about the vote. Redistricting is one aspect of it, sure, but it's not the sole reason a census is done. It's done primarily to predict tax revenues, predict infrastructure needs, predict growth patterns, support municipal planning, etc., all of which are necessities for projects that often span decades. If you're concerned about the vote, deal with the challenge posed by the electoral college instead. The Census is used for too many other things to be manipulated for the sake of political interests by one party.
- 6y ago

spacemanmatt 6y ago

Oh look, a both-sides sock puppet. Right where I expect to find one, too.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

TBH, I don't think it really matters. I mean, take voting for example. Democrats have a clear ulterior motive to expand voting, Republicans have a clear ulterior motive to make voting as difficult as possible. But, TBH, I don't really care much about their motives, because in a democracy we should be trying to get the most eligible people as possible to vote. Republicans are trying to prevent people from voting because they believe the more voting is expanded, the harder it is to get a majority of people to vote for them. Well, tough shit. To see what has happened in Texas, with dropboxes limited to one-per-county, I feel like the previous argument against voter fraud has kind of gone out the window, and now it's just blatant - there is no rational reason the giant county that contains Houston should be limited to the same number of dropboxes as a rural county with orders of magnitude fewer people.

nonplussed 6y ago

> liberal states have more [illegal immigrants] I was skeptical about this so I looked it up. Nevada and Texas are the top 2 states on a per capita basis. I'd hardly call those liberal states. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauth...

NelsonMinar 6y ago

The entire purpose of the census is to count everyone. Citizens and non-citizens. Your attempt to make a "both sides" argument here is pitting the very constitutional purpose of the census against a racist party intent on suppressing representation for minorities.