Thirty-Thousand.org

If the constitutional authority for the census has been violated by limiting the size of the House, then why co-operate with the 2010 census takers? I'm serious. Perhaps resistance to answering all the irrelevant questions on the census forms can dramatize the goal of this group. "NO information without REPRESENTATION!"

It appears the illegal immigration community want to boycott the 2010 census.

The Washington-based National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christians, led by New Jersey Rev. Miguel Rivera, is calling for a boycott of the 2010 Census by undocumented immigrants, who make up much of the coalition's constituency. Its leaders feel a boycott is the best way to pressure the Obama administration to put immigration reform on the front burner.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/0 ... stors.html

http://thehispanicinstitute.net/node/1602

We need to ensure that all citizens are properly accounted for in the 2010 Census! I believe that a boycott of the basic census function by citizens would be detrimental with respect to the resulting apportionment. Moreover, I would wonder about the true motives of anyone actively promoting a complete boycott.

However, given the statist direction of the federal government, I am disinclined to answer any census questions above and beyond those necessary to ensure my family is reflected in the population totals.

Different point, but related to the Census: a congressman has made the very sensible suggestion that the U.S. Post Office be used to conduct the census. Congressman Chaffetz notes that "we have a postal service with 760,000 employees who is a trusted entity, who already is charged with going door-to-door to every home in America." [link to story].

I suppose one may assert that the Constitutional Census places an obligation upon citizens to see that they are 'enumerated' for apportionment purposes. I think that position would persuasive if the 'enumeration' actually safeguarded the right of representation. As Thirty-Thousand.org has so conclusively demonstrated, representation is no longer the primary purpose of the census. The primary purpose of the census today is to collect personal data for corporate commercial use. Therefore, I would say that a boycott of providing that commercial information beyond strict enumeration is justifiable - assuming any lawful justification still exists.

Nevertheless, even if the enumeration did result in better representation after 2010 that would still not mean the collection of personal data for commercial use would be constitutional.

I hope this clarifies my position.

somesavvysooner wrote:Nevertheless, even if the enumeration did result in better representation after 2010 that would still not mean the collection of personal data for commercial use would be constitutional.

I agree with this statement, and I sympathize with your other concerns at a philosophical level.

My concerns are very pragmatic: states which willfully and systematically harbor illegal aliens will likely be rewarded by an overallocation of representation in the next apportionment for,like it or not,the apportionment population consists of all inhabitants. (Only a constitutional amendment could change that, IMO.)

Conversely, states which attempt to enforce the laws relative to illegal immigration will be penalized by the apportionment.

This problem is further exacerbated if citizens eliminate ourselves from the population counting. I think this is an important point.

However, I don't think anyone should provide any information beyond that if they don't feel comfortable doing so!

Regarding the enumeration of non-citizen inhabitants: Counting aliens has an effect that is inversely analogous to the old three-fifths rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise. In other words, citizens who vote gain representation in states with proportionally more aliens than those voting citizens in states with proportionally fewer aliens. The real effect of this skewing is also dependent on election outcomes in the states most skewed in both directions. One might call it "six-fifths" effect in those states with more alien inhabitants - provided, the outcome of elections in those favored states actually alter the outcome of elections for those representatives compared to what the outcome of elections for representatives would have been in the disfavored states had those elections taken place. This is a question which could only be settled by post 2012 election analysis. I agree that the skewing of representation is a reasonable hypothesis.

This may or may not be a "red" state versus "blue" state issue. Recall the political reason why the size of the House was frozen. It was a 'bipartisan' deal struck between Northern politicians awash in immigrants becoming 'unreliable' votes and Southern politicians who did not want to enfranchise their 'unreliable' negro inhabitants. In that era Northern immigrants tended to vote Democratic or Socialists and Southern Blacks tended to vote Republican - if they could vote. The deal took the pressure off incumbent politicians in both regions. Western voters were not considered as a factor in the balance of power either way.

Today, the reasons for maintaining the status quo remains the same: it protects incumbents who protect the establishment bipartisan power elite from challengers who would reflect the honest preferences of their electorates.

The establishment regards honest and effective representation as 'destabilizing'. It is a foregone conclusion within establishment circles that their failures spark 'populist' backlashes which decimate the ranks of their carefully groomed and faithful incumbent stooges.

Hence, American elections are essentially rigged behind a fog of pseudo-constitutional formalities. It makes one wonder why a census matters if elections don't matter. OH! I forgot we need the census to divvy up the deficits and stimulus boodle. It's not about representation at all anymore.