I'm trying to imagine how this could be wrong?
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/2020-census-add-question-citizenship-status-54030706
"how many people live in your home". All others can be ignored.
There used to be different fines for not answering and for incorrectly answering, but my 30 second google search found an updated single number of $5000. Not sure if that is a single fine or if it adds up for multiple offenses with the same form.
Last time around, in 2010, I remember a lot of angst by some people who received the long form of the census, which is very invasive/nosey.
Not sure if they enforced against anyone, though. A lot of outlets say the law is unenforced unless the government wants to target people for some reason....prosecutorial discretion, you know.
how many people live in your house.
(no message)
So is a law that is never enforced really a law?
(no message)
I recently registered for an industry event, and the registration form asked me if I identified as "he" or "she" or "ze" or "other." There might have been a 5th choice, but I forget it.
(no message)
"Ze will answer ze questions, or pay ze consequences!"
Makes sense to tell a census taker that you’re not a citizen in the age of Trump. No way they’d use it for anything else.
And by the way....that’s why these bastards want to add that question, and you know it.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The U.S. Census Bureau is bound by Title 13 of the United States Code. This law provides strong protection for the information collected from individuals and businesses. It is against the law for any Census Bureau employee to disclose or publish any census or survey information that identifies an individual or business. This is true even for inter-agency communication: the FBI and other government entities do not have the legal right to access this information. In fact, when these protections have been challenged, Title 13's confidentiality guarantee has been upheld.
(no message)
So, they should be good enough now.
Unless you think that governmental checks and balances are only for your political opponents and not for your own, trusted party.
(no message)
It was almost like he felt control of the Census by a partisan Democrat was important to retaining power for the Democrats.
Good thing Trump would never abuse that power like the Dems would. We don't have to worry about checks and balances.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
This isn't an attack. I don't really like the idea of illegal immigration. I just don't get to riled up about because neither party seems to care much about it.
There must be a reason no one to date has done anything on it. Heck, it went down under Obama and he certainly wasn't against it.
it because they are afraid to alienate the foreigners who coming to this country is a certain.
Why are non-voting illegals more threatening than, say, women? Or African Americans?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But Rachel hasn't told me what to think yet.
areas will result in the rebalancing of seats/delegates. The left is essentially broadcasting that illegals help their cause either through voter fraud or keeping the number of seats/delegates they have without a true population number of legal voters.