Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

In the middle of the section on housing though? Seems like an odd place to put that question. Or maybe it just seems odd to a city dweller.

[Rolan7]

The ACS is officially part of the Census.  It just isn't the 10 year census.

I don't know what your point is, but the Census website seems to disagree.  The ACS was split off from the 2010 census, which is its own thing: 
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/2010.html

Since the ACS already asked about immigration status, I'm pretty sure the current issue is still the streamlined 2020 census, follower of the 2010 census.
Raises another question, really - since the ACS has been asking this information for a while, why is it suddenly a national issue when the 2020 census asks it?  Worthy of a lawsuit from California?

[wierd]

Because NOBODY talks about the ACS for some gods damned reason.

Also, see question 3.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about/top-questions-about-the-survey.html

s my response to the American Community Survey required?

If your address was selected for the American Community Survey, you are legally obligated to answer all the questions, as accurately as you can. The relevant laws are Title 18 U.S.C Section 3571 and Section 3559, which amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221.

Your answers are important. The American Community Survey is sent to a small percentage of our population on a rotating basis. As part of a sample, you represent many other people. Learn how you can respond to the survey today.

Why is the ACS required by law?

Response to the survey is required by law because the American Community Survey is part of the decennial census, replacing the "long form" that previously was sent to a percentage of households once every 10 years. Learn more about what would happen to the American Community Survey if it was not required.

[smjjames]

The ACS is officially part of the Census.  It just isn't the 10 year census.

I don't know what your point is, but the Census website seems to disagree.  The ACS was split off from the 2010 census, which is its own thing: 
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/2010.html

Since the ACS already asked about immigration status, I'm pretty sure the current issue is still the streamlined 2020 census, follower of the 2010 census.
Raises another question, really - since the ACS has been asking this information for a while, why is it suddenly a national issue when the 2020 census asks it?  Worthy of a lawsuit from California?

Because the decinnial census is a heck of a lot bigger deal since that's what they base redistricting on and lots of funding stuff. Not to mention the whole politics surrounding it and everything.

The blue states could heavily get shafted by it, that's true, but undercounts will affect everybody.

Because NOBODY talks about the ACS for some gods damned reason.

To be fair, I hadn't heard about the ACS until fairly recently.

[wierd]

I am fairly confident that the ACS asked this question before the Trump admin. If so, it torpedoes the "Oh, scary republicans after our districts!!" line of thought, as it implies that the prior administration knew and signed off on the question. 

I will check.

[Rolan7]

To be fair, I hadn't heard about the ACS until fairly recently.

It's still interesting and new to me too (I did say so), I just worry about it getting conflated with the far less invasive and personally-identifiable US Census which is currently making headlines.

Raises another question, really - since the ACS has been asking this information for a while, why is it suddenly a national issue when the 2020 census asks it?  Worthy of a lawsuit from California?

Because the decinnial census is a heck of a lot bigger deal since that's what they base redistricting on and lots of funding stuff. Not to mention the whole politics surrounding it and everything.

The blue states could heavily get shafted by it, that's true, but undercounts will affect everybody.

Sure, but aren't people claiming that this will be used as a way to identify undocumented immigrants?  Violate the 5th amendment rights they would have as citizens?
That seems unlikely considering that there's already a much more common questionnaire which already asks these questions, and more, and apparently gets enforced very vigorously.  Again, no one has been charged since 1970 for refusing the actual census.

[wierd]

Ok, yes. The census office was totally OK with asking this question in 2015, before Lord Trump of the Shit (I mean, Sith), came to office.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/2015/quest15.pdf

Again, question 8, under PERSON.

*I am sorry for harping on the ACS so much-- just that I personally hate it with the burning passion of a class iv super nova, because I get the damn thing so fucking often.

[Rolan7]

Ah cool.  I was checking the 2018 one, which does ask if the resident is a citizen, but doesn't ask about visa status or anything that I can tell.

So that's a decent point.  Maybe it was safe to ask earlier, but now the census bureau doesn't trust the executive branch.

Edit for edit:  I can only imagine!  Thanks again for bringing it up, since it's something I really ought to know about.

[smjjames]

It's probably because the political stakes are so much higher on the main decennial one, but yeah, if it's been asked in the ACS, it kind of defuses the Democrat argument a bit.

Still though, the ACS is a much smaller sampling over time while the decennial census is a much larger sampling, which changes how the reaction happens a bit. I've also seen complaints that they won't have enough time to study how people will react to it and stuff.

To be fair, I hadn't heard about the ACS until fairly recently.

It's still interesting and new to me too (I did say so), I just worry about it getting conflated with the far less invasive and personally-identifiable US Census which is currently making headlines.

Raises another question, really - since the ACS has been asking this information for a while, why is it suddenly a national issue when the 2020 census asks it?  Worthy of a lawsuit from California?

Because the decinnial census is a heck of a lot bigger deal since that's what they base redistricting on and lots of funding stuff. Not to mention the whole politics surrounding it and everything.

The blue states could heavily get shafted by it, that's true, but undercounts will affect everybody.

Sure, but aren't people claiming that this will be used as a way to identify undocumented immigrants?  Violate the 5th amendment rights they would have as citizens?
That seems unlikely considering that there's already a much more common questionnaire which already asks these questions, and more, and apparently gets enforced very vigorously.  Again, no one has been charged since 1970 for refusing the actual census.

Well, the fear that it might plus the whole atmosphere the Trump admin has generated could lead to that.

[Frumple]

Sure, but aren't people claiming that this will be used as a way to identify undocumented immigrants?  Violate the 5th amendment rights they would have as citizens?

At least from what I'm seeing in passing, no, that's not what people are claiming (or at least not terribly much). They're claiming plenty of people are just not going to answer the question (and the census, period) if it's there, leading already notable undercounting to become worse. It's not so much likelihood of it being able to identify you as a fairly knee-jerk response to questions of that nature on the whole. It'll lead to worse data for no gain and a lot of stress for plenty of folks (up to and including our belabored census departments).

It's basically in the same general realm of behavior as habitually lying on website account information, in a very rough sense. Except with actual consequences of fairly substantial note (worse census data, primarily) and part of a pattern of behavior cheerfully engrained in our immigrant populations, documented and otherwise, by the jackbooted thugs we have handling our immigration enforcement.

And go figure, it'd be real easy to avoid the friggin' problem. Just don't ask the question. Get better data from our census. Don't waste people's time with this and let folks do their job to try and improve government functioning. Etc., etc. Hopefully at least part of that happens, for all a good chunk of effort and time's already been wasted trying to keep the sodding GOP from shitting up government functioning yet again.

[misko27]

Because NOBODY talks about the ACS for some gods damned reason.

It's because who cares. The question is simple: turnout. The Census isn't content with getting 3.5 million people, it tries to register literally everyone. Thus, anything that lowers the response rate is bad.

When a survey is going for a subset of the population, it can afford to be selective; when it's primary purpose is to count people, it is counter-productive. Hell, I remember reading guidelines for census workers which read "knock on a door; if someone yells at you to leave, mark one person as living there and move on." When you have to have everyone, the lowest common denominator of what the entire population will put up with is already pretty darn miniscule (consider that in places where voting is mandatory, there still are some people who don't vote.) Getting everyone to do something is nigh on impossible, and doing that is precisely the job of the census. The simple fact is that there'll be some immigrants who see that question and decide not to answer it at all. And that will lead to undercounting. Which is a Bad Thing^TM

The fact that the Census is increasingly underfunded and being forced to skip 2/3 of their usual practice runs doesn't help matters... And now you see why I worry.

[Maximum Spin]

The simple fact is that there'll be some immigrants who see that question and decide not to answer it at all. And that will lead to undercounting. Which is a Bad Thing^TM

"therefore, we should make it national news and attempt to scare away the maximum number of people possible, probably including some citizens who will now refuse to answer as a 'protest'"

[Frumple]

More attempt to scare away the minimum number of idiots trying to put the question on the census to begin with. Lots more. Actually more or less the entire goddamn point of publicising the issue, for all it doesn't really seem to be getting that much attention, yet.

[Sheb]

Stupid question, but... district and the likes are supposed to take only citizen population into account right?

[sluissa]

Stupid question, but... district and the likes are supposed to take only citizen population into account right?

Nope.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.[6] But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.