FACT CHECK: Has Citizenship Been A Standard Census Question?

[deminks]

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

(snip)

The last time a census form sent to most American households asked a question about U.S. citizenship was in 1950. That form asked where each person was born and in a follow-up question asked, "If foreign born — Is he naturalized?"

In 1960, there was no such question about citizenship, only about place of birth.

(snip)

In 1970, the Census Bureau began sending around two questionnaires: a short-form questionnaire to gather basic population information and a long form that asked detailed questions about everything from household income to plumbing. The short form went to most households in America. The long form was sent to a much smaller sample of households, 1 in 6. Most people didn't get it.

Starting in 1970, questions about citizenship were included in the long-form questionnaire but not the short form. For instance, in 2000, those who received the long form were asked, "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?"

(snip)

In 1996, the census added a new survey, the American Community Survey, conducted every year and sent to 3.5 million households. It asks many of the same questions as the census long-form surveys from 1970 to 2000, including the citizenship question.

Sanders said that in 2010 the citizenship question was removed. In fact, there was no long form that year — it had been replaced by the annual American Community Survey. The decennial census form asked just 10 questions.

(snip)

But if the 2020 census form does ultimately ask about citizenship status, it will be the first time most American households have received a survey asking about citizenship since 1950.

(end snip)

So, if the citizenship question is on the Annual American Community Survey, why does it need to be on the Census (short form) for 2020?

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/citizenship/

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. NO

This overt attempt to reduce tax dollars and representation for blue states is another act of war on the American people.

The question other than the obvious legal ones is what RED States could suffer and would that suffering ONLY apply to minorities?

Texas?

I am tired of a violent terrorist traitor trying to kill me in the White House.

[onecaliberal]

2. Will anyone in the White House press corps have the balls to ask fuckabee why she lied?

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. If they dont, I wont know what to do.

I wont know if we can be salvaged if our press wont do that.

I mean should we be?

[left-of-center2012]

3. Surprised they don't ask our voter registration

[procon]

5. What... You mean Sarah lied to us?

[FakeNoose]

6. It doesn't need to be on the census

... but Cambridge Analytica needs to know so they can hack the next election for the GOP.
Extra points if you also give them your email address and phone number, along with Social Security #.

[Gothmog]

7. Sanders was lying about the citizenship question being on past census forms

[csziggy]

9. It has been on most census forms 1890-2000 - they've always asked place of birth

1890 - question 14 was whether naturalized;
1900 - question 16 year of immigration, 17 number of years in the US, 18 naturaliztion
1910 - question 15 year of immigration, 16 whether naturalized or alien
1920 - question 14 year of immigration, 15 naturalized or alien, 16 if naturalized, year of naturalization
1930 - question 22 year of immigration, 23 naturalized or alien, 21 language spoken in home before coming to US
1940 - 16 Citizenship of the foreign born
1950 - 14 "Is he naturalized?"
1960 - does not seem to have asked
1970 - 16a "Is this person naturalized?"
1980 - 12 "If this person was born in a foreign country, a. Is this person a naturalized citizen of the United States?"
1990 - 9 "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?"
2000 - 13 "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?"
2010 - did not ask

All the questionnaires used for every census can be found at: https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/questionnaires/

[Gothmog]

23. FACT CHECK: Has Citizenship Been A Standard Census Question?

Your claim has been fact checked and your claim is wrong https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

The last time the Census Bureau asked all U.S. households a question about U.S. citizenship was in 1950. That form asked where each person was born and in a follow-up question asked, "If foreign born — Is he naturalized?"

In 1960, there was no such question about citizenship, only about place of birth.....

Starting in 1970, questions about citizenship were included in the long-form questionnaire but not the short form. For instance, in 2000, those who received the long form were asked, "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?"

The short form kept it simple: name, relationship, age, sex, Hispanic origin, race, marital status and whether the home is owned or rented.

Later, the census added the American Community Survey, conducted every year and sent to 3.5 million households. It began being fully implemented in 2005. It asks many of the same questions as the census long-form surveys from 1970 to 2000, including the citizenship question.

Sanders said that in 2010 the citizenship question was removed. In fact, there was no long form that year — it had been replaced by the annual American Community Survey. The decennial census form asked just 10 questions

[Sherman A1]

8. Doing genealogy and looking at the census information up to 1940

I have to say that I appreciate every single bit of information. The more the better from that point of view. I also understand that the citizenship question will likely dissuade some from either answering that particular question or responding at all. I believe that the question should be left off the 2020 census as it is likely to reduce the response totals.

[csziggy]

11. Yes, and it can be educational

My BIL's ancestor came from Austria-Hungary, and then from various countries (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.) as the decades went on, depending on which one the village he came from was in at the time. Right now, I think that village is in Hungary but it is close to the border with Slovakia so it's not surprising that the origin seems fluid.

I covered in another post here which years the citizenship question was asked since 1890. And it is understandable that that question was not asked in 2010 and should not be asked in 2020. Even though the census data pertaining to individuals is not supposed to be released for 72 years, with the increasing fascism the tendency to not answer that question will skew the results.

I do not trust any Republican in office to not open the data sooner. Look at what they tried with the voter data purportedly to prevent voter fraud!

[Demsrule86]

15. Check out what was done with the data collected in 50. Millions of Latina deported.

Some died. This is why I don't like Ike...even if he gave us highways.

[fescuerescue]

10. Census question change from survey to survey

Seems reasonable that a census that surveys American citizens should enumerate American citizenship.

But thats just me.

[Demsrule86]

13. Not to me...the idea is to damp down Latinos who fear the government and perhaps have mixed status

families from replying.

[fescuerescue]

19. That could possibly be the impact

Wouldn't surprise me at all. I know it has to be difficult to be undocumented and always worrying about getting arrested. That's gotta be tough.

I don't think however, this question is unusual. I'm old enough to have taken a few census and I absolutely recall being asked about my status.

[Demsrule86]

22. It has been used for evil before ...during the Eisnenhowar years...more than a million

Latinos were deported...it was a horror show and some died. We do not live in usual times. At this time the question serves to purposes...to dampen down the Latina vote and to find undocumented Latinas so as to deport them.

[NCTraveler]

16. You don't know what the census is.

Sorry to be so brash but your comment makes that very clear.

[fescuerescue]

17. That's pretty funny

Thanks.

[NCTraveler]

18. Smiles are my specialty.

[Ms. Toad]

20. In an era when the government is deporting people

who have lived and worked here, paid taxes, built businesses, and conducted themselves in accordance with the law - but for being brought here as children - you don't see the harm?

The census is intended to be an accurate count of people living within the United States, not just citizens. Requiring people to disclose citizenship or risk being deported because the firewall between the census data and INS is not as solid as it appears, is a surefire way to skew the results.

[Demsrule86]

12. And it lead to a huge effort to deport Latina's and people died.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/11/donald-trump/trump-eisenhower-deported-15-million-immigrants/

[NCTraveler]

14. Your ending question seems clear to me.

To limit funding to areas with higher rates of undocumented individuals.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. The irony is

the original "framers" and the more rural southern states insisted that "everyone" be counted, regardless... To the point where people who they didn't consider as "human" (enslaved people from the continent of African and their children born and/or forcibly bred here in the U.S.) got some kind of enumeration via the 3/5 compromise.

The three-fifths compromise: Rationalizing the irrational

February 12, 2013 by Donald Applestein Esq.

On this date in 1788, Federalist No. 54 was published, defending the portion of the Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, as the delegates were considering how to allot representation for each state, the question arose: How to count the slave population?

The Southern states were fearful that they would be overwhelmed in the House by the “large” states—Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. To increase their representation, the Southern states wanted their large number of slaves to be included in the population count. Of course, the large states did not want to relinquish their numerical advantage in the House. Many delegates argued slaves should not be counted at all—after all, they said, slaves are property, not persons.

The result of the debate set forth in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution was a compromise, incorporating ideas of both property and person: Population would be calculated by adding “the whole Number of free persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed,” plus “three fifths of all other Persons.”

Those “other Persons,” of course, were slaves.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-three-fifths-compromise-rationalizing-the-irrational/

Now they have gotten so narrow in their thinking that they want to get rid of this by focusing on a few "blue" states, which inturn ignores some of their own states that would be negatively impacted as well were they able to successfully carry this out. I.e., this is short-sighted thinking from a bunch of dunces.