Often overlooked. It is the case that many permanent residents of
this country who are here legally are not citizens.
The question wreaks of demagoguery, whether somebody is a citizen or not is a
completely fair question...it's asked on tax returns, driver license
applications, firearms applications, credit card applications, etc, etc,
etc....The government does not need to know are has no interest in knowing
peoples religion. This is a very transparent attempt to agitate the public
about President Trumps refugee policies.
President Donald Trump?Not for long.Citizenship/Religion?Americans have lived in a country for over
200 years without either question on the census.Why change?The republican currently occupying the WH is simply tryng to appease his
base.With the election coming up in 2020, he will need all the voter
suppression he can muster to scare people into not voting or simply voting for
him.With regard to religion, the questions the government can
ask/follow up with are endless.If the religion question is added, do
we get to pick from a menu or can we make something up? If the
religion question is added, I propose one germane addendum.If you
are religious, are you now or have you ever been or will you continue to be a
hypocrite. Imagine a whole new republican government watchdog entity
can be started that will prosecute you if they find out you fib.Perfect.Fire trump 2020.
@Neanderthal wrote: "It would be wise to know the extent of that religion in
the US in order to cautiously plan ahead. Just sayin'."Thanks, Neanderthal, for demonstrating exactly how the religion question could
be abused to deprive Americans of their rights.
"What about a question on religion?"Might not be a bad idea.
There is a religion in the world today that would like to take over the world
and has made significant inroads into Europe. It would be wise to know the
extent of that religion in the US in order to cautiously plan ahead. Just
@RealDJT - If you are not a citizen, and it leads to your apprehension, that is
"gathering criminal evidence", not "abuse".Read the
Constitution - most notably the 4th Amendment about self incrimination. CBP and
other law enforcement agencies can gather criminal evidence all they want.
However, they nor the Census Bureau can force someone to answer a question that
would be incriminating.Regardless of one's stance on
immigration or religion (or lack there of). The census must follow the the
Constitutional requirements which to count people equally.
@TheRealDJT - April 13, 2019 12:58 p.m.I don't see how a citizenship
question could conceivably be "abused". If you are not a
citizen, and it leads to your apprehension, that is "gathering criminal
evidence", not "abuse".---------------------Under your hypothetical it would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination and, therefore, un-Constitutional.
The Constitution determines how many people live in a district or how the
district is apportioned. This is so each area can have money for things like
roads and infrastructure. The highways dont know if people are legal. If
everyone in America flushed the toilet at the same time during Super Bowl Sunday
half time, would the plumbing hold up? That's all the federal government
needs to know for the census. The other information, like number of people
coming into the country or staying illegally is something else, and other
methods of finding them must be used. And considering how low regular voting
turnout is, maybe there should be a citizenship question, and a requirement to
I don't see how a citizenship question could conceivably be
"abused". If you are not a citizen, and it leads to your
apprehension, that is "gathering criminal evidence", not
>>That 3/5 part was concerning slaves. Should we count the descendants
of slaves as 3/5 of a person?Given that all sections of the original
Constitution pertaining to slavery were superseded by the 13th and 14th
If President Trump actually wants/wanted a question on religion, he probably
should have started the ball rolling on that three years ago instead of having
Ross lie to congress about where the citizenship question was coming from.
NefiT: No, illegal aliens do not have any right to representation. Only
citizens have a right to representation. Regardless of their ethnicity,
longevity or religion, all citizens have a right to representation but
citizenship status is the requirement. The primary purpose for the census is to
determine the number and location of citizens. No one has a valid expectation
that they will not be asked their citizen status in the census. No one.
Furry,I hope that "We The People" has posted a demonstration
of Poe's Law.Your response is well taken, in either case.
@WeThePeople - April 11, 2019 1:05 p.m.A religion question would be very
useful. It would help us understand which areas have loyal American's
living there, and which areas are suspect.The FBI could then target
their efforts on the people who are more likely to harm America. That will Make
America Great Again.-----You realize, don't you, that
despite what the far right extremist authoritarians want to try to claim and
what they want to con people into thinking, the religion (if any) to which
person belongs has absolutely ho bearing on whether the person is a "loyal
American" or is a "person who is more likely to harm America." You
have to look no further for proof of that than to the people who assert rabid
Christianity but at the same time are trying to tear down the Constitutional
protections held by ALL people to the extent that those provisions protect
people who believe and act differently from them. By trying to deny the same
Constitutional protections to everyone, they are turning themselves into people
who are more likely to harm America and the Constitution which protects us all.
Perhaps a question about religion is a way to gauge the resistance to First
Amendment violations/legal changes.
A few thoughts.1-There is no doubt the census contains many
questions that are invasive to our privacy and go beyond the constitutionally
authorized/mandated census for purposes of allocating representation (and before
the 16th amd, allocating federal tax burden among the several States). There can
also be little doubt that the census is a very cost effective way to gather a
lot of very useful data.I propose a compromise: The census should
have two parts. The first is legally mandated and asks about number of persons
living at the address and any other constitutionally appropriate questions
(citizenship or other legal status may or may not be permissible). The 2nd part
is optional, detaches from the 1st part for anonymity, and asks about other
useful things like religious affilliation, number of toilets, etc.2-I do not know whether the issue of citizen vs legal resident vs illegal
alien has ever been adjudicated for congressional allocation. I can see it going
either way. But which way it goes has some interesting ramifications I will
discuss in my next post.
NeifyTSubject to the laws while they’re here? How about since they
and their liberal supporters feel they should NOT be subject to immigration
laws, liberals should also admit they have no right to any representation in
government?They have no right to such anyway, but that would just
strengthen the case against them.They can still respond to the
census if they want to be counted.
America has a right to know who is here illegally. Many people are here legally
on visas, and the census asks them the question. Why just eliminate the illegal
The people opposed to the citizenship question on the census are democrat
controlled states like California with higher concentrations of non citizens
where they can capitalize on their sanctuary cities and stack more democrats
into the house and senate to further their control of the government. Floating
the religious question into the debate is only something that the democrats and
liberal news media would exploit for talking points and race baiting propaganda.
Non citizens can’t vote legally in the US which is one of the reasons they
don’t deserve representation.
Both of those questions would get a "none of your business" answer from
me. My religion has no bearing on any issue that a census would answer. The
issue of citizenship does not impact anything that a census answers -- namely,
how the population of the United States (regardless whether that population is
citizen or not) is spread among the various states and territories that are part
of this country. "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" is the proper answer to those
Neither question is pertinent to the purpose of the Census. (Even illegal
aliens need to have representation in government, as they are still subject to
the laws of the United States so long as they are here.)And as for
religion; the government has no right (nor any need) to ask a person's
religion. In fact, there is nothing good that can come from knowing the
religious makeup of individuals.For taxation (and exemption); it is
fine to have churches fill out information such as attendance records; when
their congregations were established; etc. But NONE of that information should
be tied to individuals (a.k.a Personally Identifiable Information). And the
census clearly has Personally Identifiable Information at its very heart.The only questions that should be on the census is the names and ages of
the people living in a residence (or on the streets, or anywhere else). As the
purpose is to identify ALL people who are subject to US laws (hence need
representation in congress).There is a time and place for other
polling other demographics... but the US Census is not the time and place for
anything beyond a population count.
A religion question would be very useful. It would help us understand which
areas have loyal American's living there, and which areas are suspect.The FBI could then target their efforts on the people who are more
likely to harm America. That will Make America Great Again.
How about no to both questions.
Your religion has nothing to do with whether or not you are here legally, but
citizenship automatically says you are.PelukasThat 3/5 part
was concerning slaves. Should we count the descendants of slaves as 3/5 of a
When I read the headline, my first thought was that Trump wants to ask us about
religion.That's not even on the table, but the seed was
planted. Was it an innocent editorial mistake, or another anti-Trump hit job?
You can never tell these days.And the reporter suggests that the
citizenship question is "new." Not true. The naturalization question was
on the census up to 1950.But of course, that little fact
doesn't have the narrative punch of calling Trump's idea
"new."Can't you guys just let the president govern?
The constitution of the US states: "We the People of the United
States..." Every reference to People in the constitution then refers to
people of the United States. Sounds like a citizen to me. Seems appropriate to
know how many and who they are.
Just ask "Are you an atheist". Check the box for yes. They won't
mind answering and you can assume that the rest are religious.
"Fine. How about if we also ask “do you practice what you
preach?”I’m sure trump’s answer to that would be
I’m the greatest Christian that ever walked the face of the earth! The
greatest!"Just curious: Are you his Bishop? If not, what
qualifies you to pass judgment on his religious observance? Follow-up question:
how does your comment pertain in any way to the census?
Its not just money being spent in the states, it’s also how many
congressional seats are distributed. By not considering citizen status, the
states with more illegal aliens get more political power. With the trend toward
increasing illegal aliens, now at an alarming 100,000 per month, states like
California will become more dominant than they already are. Democrats will
continue their push to obtain more power by giving illegal aliens the right to
vote. The Democratic Party position is about power and not about privacy or not
offending people. Power. Only power.
@Count Rushmore"Congressional apportionment pertains to voters, and
thus citizenship is relevant"Allocation is done based on the
total amount of people living in the area, not the count of voters so
citizenship actually does not matter for that.
Religious status is not relevant. But citizenship status is very important.
People that don't want citizenship status mentioned are trying to hide
What the proposed citizenship question and a religion question would have in
common?Enormous potential for abuse.
Fine. How about if we also ask “do you practice what you preach?”I’m sure trump’s answer to that would be I’m the
greatest Christian that ever walked the face of the earth! The greatest!
"...Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States whichmay be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall bedetermined by adding to the whole Number
of free Persons, including those bound toService for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all otherPersons..." The
US constitution clearly states that ALL PERSONS should be counted. The only
ones excluded (by the constitution) are the so called "...Indians not
taxed...". Additionaly if only pertains to voters, whgat about kids, should
not be counted, what about voters that do not vote?, what about citizens that do
not register to vote.Let's follow the contitution and count
everybody, no questions asked.
While I really wouldn't object to a question about religion on the census,
I would still have to recognize that there is no honest comparison of a
religious question and an immigration status question. All have a right to
free expression of religion. There is no right to be in the USA illegally.
Illegals are criminals by virtue of their being here at all. If a census
question would aid in apprehending them, then that is a good thing. If you
are here legally, there should be no problem. Right ?
Hmmm. What is the purpose of the census? It "affects congressional
apportionment and federal funding for 10 years." Congressional apportionment
pertains to voters, and thus citizenship is relevant, not religious
affiliation.There are lots of things that might be nice to know.
That doesn't mean researchers get to use government power to compel people
to answer them.