Its quick, its easy!

I received the United States Census 2010 today, in a bag from two very polite census people.  They asked a few questions.  Could you verify your address?  How many people live here?  Do you have a basement?  After that they handed me the bag containing the census and a message from the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.

The message was the following:

"This is your official 2010 Census form.  We need your help to count everyone in the United States by providing basic information about all the people living in this house or apartment.   Please complete and mail back the enclosed census form today.

Your answers are important.  Census results are used to decide the number of representatives each state has in the U.S. Congress.  The amount of government money your neighborhood receives also depends on these answers.  That money is used for services for children and the elderly, roads and many other local needs.

Your answers are confidential.  This means the Census Bureau cannot give out information that identifies you or your household.  Your answers will only be used for statistical purposes, and no other purpose.  The back of this letter contains more information about protecting your data."

This all made sense to me until I opened the actual Census.  No where in the Census was the question, "Are you a legal U.S. Citizen?"

This seems a very important question to be left off of the U.S. Census as it says in the Director's message above, this statistical information will determine the number of congressional representatives each state has and the funding our neighborhood receives!  We have to be legal U.S. Citizens to vote for our representatives.  Does it not follow that we should determine the representatives based upon being a U.S. citizen?  Will not the number of representatives be skewed in favor of those States which have large numbers of illegal aliens?  Does this in effect provide representation for those who are not legal citizens?  Just what does it mean to be a legal citizen anymore? 

If the definition of citizenship is diluted to the extent it has been, the example above, terrorists receiving civil rights and trials, illegals holding jobs etc.  What purpose is there to citizenship?  What additional benefit does it provide?

Given the economic state our country is heading into and the scarcity of jobs becoming greater, more and more legal citizens will be eager to do the jobs that supposedly, "only illegals are willing to do."  I asked this before.  Just who will be entitled to that job?  The illegal who is currently employed in that position, or an American citizen?  Will one need to go to court in order to unseat a currently employed illegal?  Is it fair to distribute government finances in greater amounts to those neighborhoods which have the greater number of people due in large part to illegals counted in that population?

This is income redistribution of not only collected government funds but of those dollars yet to be earned via available jobs.  Just as the health bill avoids  distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens so too does this census.  Along with the erosion of what it means to be a citizen, so too will our rights erode. 

Given there seems to be no distinction between being a citizen and a non citizen when considering the benefits, the only thing that citizenship seems to provide a distinction on is holding one to the responsibilities that come with being a U.S. citizen.  You see, those polite Census takers said that they would be back to see me if I didn't fill out the form as, YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.  Hmmm...isn't being in this country legally too?  I know we call those who enter this country illegally, "undocumented aliens."  What do you call someone who does not fill out the Census?

Peace  

Permalink
tags: + add tags
savecancel
posted on Thu, Feb 25, 2010 04:52 PM
last updated on Thu, Feb 25, 2010 04:56 PM
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Truth or Tell bycwrite5 months ago (8 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Doesn't the New World Order
involve erasing national
borders. In that case,
being a citizen doesn't
matter to those in power.
Someone who doesn't fill out
the census form values their
privacy.
RE: Truth or Tell byLiberal Doses5 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
ROL,

Actually I was looking for an answer within a legal context with a degree of political correctness applied. Due to the fact the census is brief and the burden of responding is slight, the opportunity for slacking is virtually non-existent. Oversight, or willful disregard would be the more likely cause. Perhaps you could make another more concerted attempt? After all, you would not want the moniker "slacker" applied to you.

Peace
RE: Truth or Tell byRightof Left5 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Sorry LD I am too bored and disinterested in the subject to think of anything to add.


In other words, a Slacker. ;)
What do you call someone who does not fill out the Census? byRightof Left5 months ago (6 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Slacker?
still not motivated... byxfile10695 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
... to take you seriously LD. at least Dale Gribble and his obscene paranoia is humorous ("I once killed a Tennessee Walking horse for looking at me funny").
RE: still not motivated... byalamator5 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
Now thats funny..!
RE: still not motivated... byRightof Left5 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
I laughed as well.
Of course... byLiberal Doses5 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Typical responses from the liberal left. Simple name calling. Been there, done that.

Peace
RE: Of course... byRightof Left5 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
"Simple name calling. Been there, done that."

Lighten up Francis.

:)
RE: Of course... byxfile10695 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
I think you're confusing name-calling with derision. Truth is, I'm not really interested in discussing the "Illegal Immigrantion Meets the Census" issue with you. It's brought up every ten years, and you're not special in having these thoughts or thinking that the country is going to go to pot because of this issue.

[sarcasm]You're right - giving people who are arrested inside of our borders the civil rights that our constitution affords all people in our country, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, is basically the same thing as them being citizens. And thus, citizenship means nothing. Yep, you're right.[/sarcasm]

You're barking up the wrong tree. If you want whatever it is you're on about, with terrorists and civil rights and such, you should petition your congressperson to put forth a law that makes an appropriate distinction between people who are not nationals and are flying into our country but haven't yet landed when they commit their crime, to have them treated differently. Or whatever distinction you think is right. Currently the constitution doesn't prescribe for that scenario. Your issue is with the constitution, not with the census, illegal immigration, and/or apportionment.
Do I hear the Kinks? bydanie0065 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Is that the Kinks I hear rattling around in LD's brain - "parinoia will destroy ya..."?

You are going to give yourself a tumor if you do quit worrying about every little thing, LD.
RE: Do I hear the Kinks? byLiberal Doses4 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Danie,

I hear Nirvana, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not following you."

Peace
Still the Same Old Same Old . . . . byAlphaBeagle5 months ago (6 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I haven't been in here for weeks, and I see the same old brainwashed, Obama-mesmerized automatons are still faithfully spewing the same indoctrinated, regurgitated crap. You guys can hardly wait for the "New World Order" (which is really the "Old World Order" but given a new coating, like lipstick on a pig). You all seem eager to don your communist working clothes and square hats, ready to salute your "comrades" as a "new" (old) day dawns. A "new" hope built upon "progressive" ideas which are really regressive ideas which killed millions in the past, and will no doubt result in the deaths of millions in the future, if pushed to the inevitable, unavoidable conclusion, given the nature of man and the nature of narcissistic, arrogant individuals like Obama. These are the kind of personalities (rather than "leaders") that become dictators and tyrants. In the words of L.D., "Peace", and I see no need to return to this forum of morons for at least another several weeks.
RE: Still the Same Old Same Old . . . . byalamator4 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
See you haven't changed a bit either AB.

Coo Coo...Coo Coo...

(Note: Before you start spouting off about name calling...re-read you own post)
RE: Still the Same Old Same Old . . . . byRightof Left4 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Don't let the door hit you in the a$$
RE: Still the Same Old Same Old . . . . byPaulDirac4 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Don’t go anywhere. I’m here now and will help. I come from a farming family and know what hard work is.
It's quick, it's easy, it's nosey bycwrite4 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Let's get back on topic.
RE: It's quick, it's easy, it's nosey byRightof Left4 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
O.K.

Its nosey. Yep, it is called the Census.

Every ten years the population is counted.

If that freaks you out, well, then that is your problem.

Don't fill it out and watch for the black helicopters.
Down to basics byLiberal Doses4 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
ROL,

Actually, the census itself is not really nosey. It simply counts the number of people and their race. In fact, I was surprised how basic it is. It is quick and easy. I did think the question from one of the takers about whether or not I had a basement was odd given they did not ask anything else about my house. Like number of bedrooms etc.

There is no paranoia in facts. It is a fact that the determination of congressional representation and fund distribution where it concers the validity citizenship, will be skewed in favor of those areas that have larger populations of illegals when there is no consideration of citizenship.

Look, I have no interest in convincing someone of your caliber, I was speaking to those who might be interested. You have convinced me that you are close minded where I am concerned, you need not beat the dead horse. If you are not interested why respond? Of course, that is fine. That is freedom of speech and I am content that your posts speak for themselves. However, if you are going to attack someone personally, could you please be more inventive as that would at least provide some level of entertainment beyond the crass.

Peace
RE: Down to basics bybozoexpat4 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
From your original post:

"Does it not follow that we should determine the representatives based upon being a U.S. citizen?"

Not according to the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the following:

"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."

It makes no mention of the citizenship status of the people being counting. Oh, that pesky U.S. Constitution!
RE: Down to basics byRightof Left4 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
I was not responding to you, how much more basic can you get?
Thanks for addressing the topic! byLiberal Doses4 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
bozoexpat,

Thanks for not resorting to name calling.

You are correct in what the Constitution says. However, where did I mention the Constitution?

Whatever the U.S. Constitution says, it does not invalidate any of the statements, nor questions I presented in my original post.

Peace
RE: Thanks for addressing the topic! bybozoexpat4 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Since the Constitution mandates that representatives be apportioned according to population, and since the Census Bureau is charged with determining the population, any discussion on the topic involves the Constitution, whether or not it is mentioned explicitly.

As far as invalidating any of your statements or questions, I didn't comment on any of your statements, and I don't think it is possible to invalidate a question. I merely pointed out that the 14th amendment gives at least a partial answer to one of your questions. Now I understand that your question may not have been just about how we currently determine representatives, but it may be a more philosophical question about how, in your opinion, it should be done. That's fine, but I disagree. In fact, I don't think it was ever intended that representation be apportioned according to the number of eligible voters (as you strongly infer with your question and the statement immediately preceding) and I'm perfectly comfortable with going along with the framers of the constitution on this.
When it hits home. byLiberal Doses4 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Bozoexpat,

Whether or not a question is a valid question is a matter of opinion. IMHO, the 14th amendment does not provide any answer to my question, let alone a partial one. My statement regarding the numbers being skewed in favor of those populations which are comprised of large populations of illegal immigrants is not a question it is a fact. It is also a fact that entering this country illegally is breaking the law. Were the law properly enforced, the Census would more accurately reflect the numbers upon which representation and fund distribution would be derived. There is nothing philosophical about that. The Constitution was written with the inherent assumption that it, along the laws of the land would be followed and enforced. "As we are a nation of laws and not men."

Peoples opinions and attitudes often vary upon the extent to which they are personally affected by something. For example, I have witnessed much anger directed at those who budge in line at the grocery store, etc. Perhaps lax attitudes towards illegal immigration will change when the affect of it becomes more pervasive and personal.

Peace
What is the Purpose of the Census? byAlphaBeagle4 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
According to the ads running on television, the government needs to know how many "persons" are living in a household so they know what "services" need to be added or improved. Given the fact that we now have more illegals in this country than we know what to do with, and given the fact that LEGAL U.S. Citizen(s) is not mentioned in the census, who do you think is going to pay for the added/improved services in our country? Are we not being taxed to death already? Are our children and grandchildren not being taxed without representation? Will they not, in effect, become "indentured servants" to the government, given our already huge debt? As for asking about our homes, and strange questions like whether or not you have a basement - perhaps they want to know for future reference, (such as if martial law is declared), what you might HAVE in your basement - guns and/or food? Or perhaps it will be a "Dr. Zchivago" moment - remember? He was told by a government official that his home was "too big" for just him and his family - and the government proceeded to move strangers into his house. Perhaps we will be forced to take strangers into our homes - a violation of private property rights - but we're losing that right, along with others, bit by bit. Again, I say, liberal-minded people are too trusting, too gullible. They believe in a government that has their best interests at heart. They believe it is possible to create a utopia on earth - they believe socialism and communism will work towards this utopia, "if they just get the right leader(s) in place" - despite the millions upon millions who died as a direct result of these beliefs. Liberals call us paranoid. I'd rather be paranoid than be a trusting dupe!