One more census rant...

[ols386]

I would never fill-out a census form for someone else. That seems like fraud.

 

[Joe in VA]

IMHO, the Constitution says they have to count every 10 years. It says nothing about race, age, or anything else. Any other interpretation is creating something that isn't actually written. I won't be giving them anything more than a head count.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I would never fill-out a census form for someone else. That seems like fraud.

Well, the census enumerators fill out census forms for other people all the time. It's what they do. No fraud.

The OP didn't fill out any form for anyone. She simply answered the enumerator's questions on behalf of her aunt - perfectly legal; then completed a space on the back of the form indicating that she'd done this - again, perfectly legal.

 

[kaytieeldr]

IMHO, the Constitution says they have to count every 10 years. It says nothing about race, age, or anything else. Any other interpretation is creating something that isn't actually written. I won't be giving them anything more than a head count.

Just curious why you didn't just do that when your form came in the mail?

 

[ZephyrHawk]

IMHO, the Constitution says they have to count every 10 years. It says nothing about race, age, or anything else. Any other interpretation is creating something that isn't actually written. I won't be giving them anything more than a head count.

Well, actually, the Constitution and original census do take race into consideration.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ~Art II, Sec 2.

Now, mind you, we do count everyone as a whole person, but that's not the point. The point is not telling the government your race is kinda silly...since, you know, they have your name and address and could just go check you out and determine it that way. But I suppose if it make people feel better...

 

[Purseval]

Just curious why you didn't just do that when your form came in the mail?

How do you know she didn't? That's what a lot of people, myself included, do. I doubt you will find many people who object to the original intent of the census. It's when you get a 30-page form asking about masses of personal information that people draw the line. The Census Bureau made a halfhearted effort to address those objections by using the American Community Survey, claiming that filling out something that is regularly sent out wouldn't be so intrusive. They miss the point, surprise surprise.

 

[sbell111]

Why??? If you are white and you were born in the USA why wouldn't you identify yourself as such?

Mostly because 'American' is not a race.

IMHO, the Constitution says they have to count every 10 years. It says nothing about race, age, or anything else. Any other interpretation is creating something that isn't actually written. I won't be giving them anything more than a head count.

The courts disagree with you.

Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional

It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).

You might also check out Title 13 Sections 141 and 221 which state that this information should be included in the census and requires each of us to provide the information.

 

[claudia]

Mostly because 'American' is not a race.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, the only thing that matters is how a person wants to identify themselves. It they choose "Amercian" they have every right to and as an enumerator my only job is to report what is told to me.....we have extra spaces available to fill in that information if that is how the respondant identifies...

 

[kaytieeldr]

How do you know she didn't?

Well, I was quoting Joe in VA, and specifically responding to the statement made at 11:10 eastern time May 27, 2010 where she/he said:

I won't be giving them anything more than a head count.

not that she/he didn't give that, or any specific, information. I was just curious why, with all the publicity surrounding the census and all the premailed alerts, why someone who chose to only respond to certain questions didn't just do that when they got the questionnaire.

 

[moburg]

Well, actually, the Constitution and original census do take race into consideration.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ~Art II, Sec 2.

Now, mind you, we do count everyone as a whole person, but that's not the point. The point is not telling the government your race is kinda silly...since, you know, they have your name and address and could just go check you out and determine it that way. But I suppose if it make people feel better...

That portion of the Constitution does not mention race. It mentions those bound to service, i.e., slaves. While the preponderance were black, not all were.


Oh, and my niece looks white, like her mother, but I think she would be considered Hispanic, like her father. I guess if a census worker took a look and guessed, they would be wrong.

Race, as far as the census is concerned, is irrelevant! As is age, birth date, ownership status of residence, etc.

 

[moburg]

IMHO, the Constitution says they have to count every 10 years. It says nothing about race, age, or anything else. Any other interpretation is creating something that isn't actually written. I won't be giving them anything more than a head count.

Just curious why you didn't just do that when your form came in the mail?

Well, I was quoting Joe in VA, and specifically responding to the statement made at 11:10 eastern time May 27, 2010 where she/he said: not that she/he didn't give that, or any specific, information. I was just curious why, with all the publicity surrounding the census and all the premailed alerts, why someone who chose to only respond to certain questions didn't just do that when they got the questionnaire.

Again, how do you know he didn't? He said that he won't give anything more than a head count. There is no statement one way or another on his mail response. He could have mailed in a form that simply said X people live here, and left the rest blank.

Thats what I did in 2000, and never got a visit from a census worker. I answered more this time around, for genealogical purposes, but still left several questions blank. Still no visits.

 

[crashbb]

Again, how do you know he didn't? He said that he won't give anything more than a head count. There is no statement one way or another on his mail response. He could have mailed in a form that simply said X people live here, and left the rest blank.

Thats what I did in 2000, and never got a visit from a census worker. I answered more this time around, for genealogical purposes, but still left several questions blank. Still no visits.

I'm not the PP, but I'm going to assume it was the use of "won't" rather than "didn't".

I could be wrong though.

I'm finding the discussion about race questions rather interesting. Canadians and Americans differ greatly in how we describe race/ethnicity.

 

[bumbershoot]

but isn't it her right to identify as she wants???

Is Caucasian something to be ashamed of? Does "American Caucasian" make it worse?

Why??? If you are white and you were born in the USA why wouldn't you identify yourself as such?

You guys *seriously* think American Caucasian makes sense and is a good reason to NOT fill out the forms? I think maybe you guys missed the fact that she didn't fill it out partially because she wanted a spot that said AC, and didn't realize she could have written it in.

I'd have identified myself as "pink" (since I'm not actually "white"), but I just went ahead with non-hispanic and Caucasian and was done with it.

Mostly because 'American' is not a race.

Thank you.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, the only thing that matters is how a person wants to identify themselves. It they choose "Amercian" they have every right to and as an enumerator my only job is to report what is told to me.....we have extra spaces available to fill in that information if that is how the respondant identifies...

And she certainly could have done so, but she didn't. She didn't fill it out, partially because they didn't have it already typed on there or she didn't look to see that she could have written it in.

I'm not the PP, but I'm going to assume it was the use of "won't" rather than "didn't".

I agree with the "won't" part being a possibly telling sign.

 

[sbell111]

And she certainly could have done so, but she didn't. She didn't fill it out, partially because they didn't have it already typed on there or she didn't look to see that she could have written it in.

Maybe she didn't know how to spell it.

 

[snapppyd]

You guys *seriously* think American Caucasian makes sense and is a good reason to NOT fill out the forms? I think maybe you guys missed the fact that she didn't fill it out partially because she wanted a spot that said AC, and didn't realize she could have written it in.

I'd have identified myself as "pink" (since I'm not actually "white"), but I just went ahead with non-hispanic and Caucasian and was done with it.


Thank you.


And she certainly could have done so, but she didn't. She didn't fill it out, partially because they didn't have it already typed on there or she didn't look to see that she could have written it in.


I agree with the "won't" part being a possibly telling sign.

I did not say it was a good reason not to fill out the form. I asked why it seemed offensive to you that someone would want to identify themselves as an American caucasian?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Again, how do you know he didn't? He said that he won't give anything more than a head count.

By the verb. Won't is a contraction of 'will not'. It's future tense; it indicates an action in which one has not yet engaged. If she/he had completed the census form already, the proper statement would have been "I did not give them anything more than a head count." That's past tense, and would have described an action taken - or not - at some point prior to the statement being made or written.

Simple grammar.

Thats what I did in 2000, and never got a visit from a census worker. I answered more this time around, for genealogical purposes, but still left several questions blank. Still no visits.

Well, given that you DID mail back your census form as required, there would be no reason for a census worker - enumerator - to visit you. They are visiting people who NEVER SENT BACK THE FORMS, PERIOD. They're not contacting people who returned forms with fields left blank.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I'm not the PP, but I'm going to assume it was the use of "won't" rather than "didn't".

I could be wrong though.

Well, except you're not wrong - you're exactly right. This is a genuinely educational thread. I never realized that even though Canadians use the entirely wrong system of weights and measures - your grammar is identical to ours!

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I did not say it was a good reason not to fill out the form. I asked why it seemed offensive to you that someone would want to identify themselves as an American caucasian?

It's not "offensive" to me at all, but I do find it bizarre. Of course, she should write that in, if that's what she wants to call her race, I am not suggesting anything different, but as far as I'm concerned, "American" is a nationality, not a race.

 

[snapppyd]

It's not "offensive" to me at all, but I do find it bizarre. Of course, she should write that in, if that's what she wants to call her race, I am not suggesting anything different, but as far as I'm concerned, "American" is a nationality, not a race.

I'm sorry, I was speaking to Bumper, not you, however,

American = nationality
Caucasion = race

American Caucasion - why is that bizarre?

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I'm sorry, I was speaking to Bumper, not you, however,

American = nationality
Caucasion = race

American Caucasion - why is that bizarre?

I realize you were asking Bumber, but this is a public board, and no one needs to be addressed personally to take part in the conversation.

I think I was pretty clear in why I find it bizarre. The census does not ask for nationality/race, it asks for race. I find it bizarre to answer the question "what is your race?" with "American caucasian".