41–50 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they were but the compromise they accepted was Indians not taxed, so unless there’s some pretty surprising evidence…
Well, at the time, Indians (Native Americans) were the largest populaton of non-citizens residing in the country. That is no longer the case today. (There are 10 times more non-citizens than non-citizen Native Americans today.)
I believe that most people are in favor of fixing the problems caused by the improper allocation of additional congressional representation to areas with larger populations of non-citizens. This piece complains about the upcoming changes without going into any depth on the problems these proposed changes will resolve.
I believe that most people are in favor of fixing the problems caused by the improper allocation of additional congressional representation to areas with larger populations of non-citizens. This piece complains about the upcoming changes without going into any depth on the problems these proposed changes will resolve.
Maybe they are. But that doesn't mean it will get ended.
If "improper allocation" problems are selectively addressed, expect division on partisan lines.
the US statistical system is currently down, I'm estimating that we won't get an accurate picture of what systems have been wiped out until we can get some forensic analysts in there in 2029 or so once we solve a little HR issue we have in the executive branch.
This shit aint never getting fixed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That change really requires a constitutional amendment, since the relevant article talks about counting persons, not citizens.
So what do you make of the phrase in Amendment 14 section two; "excluding Indians not taxed."? Do you suppose maybe they were trying to limit the representation to citizens?
And through some impressive legal magic perversity, illegal immigrants in the US pay plenty of taxes. "No taxation without representation", wasn't that a phrase?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2029? By then the pendulum would swing back to it being considered "deep state intervention" and a "waste of taxpayer funds" especially since "the national debt is higher than ever".
If anybody really cared about the national debt they would stop passing giant tax cuts.
Corruption in the US Census Bureau? No fuckin' way!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hispanic isn't related to race.
first they are mostly collecting statistics about ethnicity, not race genetically there is only one human race (which is often best explained as the genetic differences _inside_ a sample group of arbitrary ethnicities being larger then the difference between (a hypothetical average genome) of such groups). through to be fair, people use race and ethnicity commonly interchangeable what is more relevant is why should a…
From the 2020 form I can see, the question is: "What is this person’s race? Mark X one or more boxes [...]"
> what is more relevant is why should a country even collect either such information?!
Having the true population (or close to it) is very useful for a lot of purposes in statistics/scientific studies - like knowing whether your sample is representative (and how much to undersample/oversample if not), or controlling for race when looking at factors correlated with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opinion.
So what? The article describes the political implications of the Census Bureau errors. I cited the Census Bureau release itself so you can cross-check whether the factual assertions in the article are accurate.
So it's useful to identify this as not something a journalist or credible outlet would actually put their name to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what do you make of the phrase in Amendment 14 section two; "excluding Indians not taxed."? Do you suppose maybe they were trying to limit the representation to citizens?
Citizens? Surely you mean taxpayers? And through some impressive legal magic perversity, illegal immigrants in the US pay plenty of taxes. "No taxation without representation", wasn't that a phrase?