On September 17, U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah) introduced S.1688, to provide that the number of seats in the U.S. House for each state should be based on how many U.S. citizens live in that state. The bill is co-sponsored both Senators Jim Bunning (R-Ky), Tom Coburn (R-Ok), James Inhofe (R-Ok), David Vitter (R-La), Mike Crapo (R-Id) and Michael Enzi (R-Wy).
The 14th Amendment, sec. 2, says, “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.”
Senator Bennett’s web page has this U-Tube, showing the Senator speaking in favor of his bill. The U-Tube is 8 minutes and 23 seconds, and Senator Bennett purports to rebut all the reasons for opposing his bill. However, he never mentions the U.S. Constitutional provision quoted above. Bennett does say that if his bill were to become law, four states would lose representation in the U.S. House, but he does not say which states those would be. He says nine other states would gain representation in the U.S. House.
Is such a bill necessary ???
ILLEGAL foreign folks in ANY country are ENEMY invaders — for the last about 6,000 years of world history.
Of course, the usual suspect leftwing statists want all ILLEGAL folks to have ALL rights — in order to have a leftwing PERMANENT take over the U.S.A.
What if an army of foreign *legal* tourists was passing through a State on Census count day — or an even larger legal Allied foreign army [see the large French Army in the U.S.A. in 1781 that helped the U.S.A. defeat the Brits on 19 Oct 1781 at Yorktown, VA] ???
Thus – are *persons* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 ONLY U.S.A. citizens (noting that ALL American Indians were made U.S.A. citizens in about 1923) ???
Only resident U.S.A. citizen persons in a given State (with non-residents being counted as if in their home area — military base folks, college folks, etc.) ???
Only the party hack Supremes know for sure.
The Census is totally obsolete the instant it is reported. About 15 percent of the population moves around per year in normal economic years.
P.R. and A.V. — ACTUAL voters vote — NOT census persons.
check out the various “Strunk” census cases since 1990 especially Loeber v Spargo (2nd Circ) and now Strunk v USDOC Census (09-1295 USDC-DC)
What would this bill change? I don’t understand.
# 3 The census folks currently count everybody — citizens and non-citizens (legal and illegal) for the purpose of spreading the 435 gerrymander seats in the gerrymander U.S.A. House of Reps among the 50 States.
Roughly — 435 x State Pop / 50 State Pops. sum — with roughly the higher fractions getting marginal seats.
Tech math actually used – Method of Equal Proportions. See internet.
The bill would only count U.S.A. citizens.
Some marginal seats would change since some States have a much higher percentage of illegal foreign folks than others — CA, TX, FL, NY, etc.
the word “tourists” is suggested to classify many of these aliens. Also the individual state constitutions such has NY have interesting related citizen-census language being ignored by the state legislature and the courts (state and federal).
In NY City a state legislator or federal congress person requires less than half the votes needed to win election for similar office outside NYC.
Aside from the fact that the constitution mandates PERSONS, which includes all humans, how are census workers paid $10/hour walking around neighborhoods supposed to verify citizen vs non-citizen and legal vs illegal aliens? Even trained immigration officers with access to databases have difficulty.
As for counting tourists, do you have any data to suggest that this happens? Are hotels, motels, etc. polled for the census? Do tourists actually reply to the census? What about US citizens with multiple residences-are they counted twice?
Please Demo Rep, I want a response that includes actual data (assuming you know what that word means) not conjecture and hyperbole.
You must be reading the abridged version of the Constitution. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment specifically requires consideration of citizenship in apportioning representatives.
Following passage of the 14th Amendment, Congress was preparing for the 1870 Census, and there were to be specific questions necessary to enforce the 14th Amendment: citizenship status; age; sex; whether the person could vote; and if not, was it due to commission of a felony, or an act of rebellion. Some of the questions were omitted, but the Census Bureau went ahead and asked enumerators to gather similar information. This was done in a haphazard and inconsistent way, but was reported to Congress.
When the Apportionment act was being considered, an attempt was made to apply the numbers. They were generally small percentages (eg some States excluded imbeciles and illiterates, etc.), and would not have had any effect on the apportionment, and since the data was so incomplete, Congress gave up. But they did incorporate the apportionment language into statute (see 2 USC 6).
And of course the pre-clearance jurisdictions under Section 5 of the VRA were defined based on differential participation rates by race among adult US citizens. They are now based on really old data.
The people who wrote the 14th amendment certainly knew enough about the English language to say “citizen” if they wanted to. Section 3 of the 14th amendment says any state that prevents “male inhabitants, being 21 years of age, and a citizen of the United States” from voting, shall have its congressional delegation reduced in proportion to how many of such citizens weren’t allowed to vote (it has an exception for felons and ex-felons). So if section 3 has the word “citizen” in it, and section 2 doesn’t, that seems really convincing to me that section 2 was carefully written to say the census is supposed to count every “in each state.”
I just happened to be on a vacation in Great Britain on the British census day in 1981, and the census forms made very clear that I was supposed to be listed, since I had slept in Great Britain the night before the census day. It was a form that arrived in the postal mail. I was staying with a British friend, so I did get into the 1981 British census.
#8 I agree. The word “person” means human being regardless of nationality.
That’s interesting about the British census. Is that the case in the US?
The United States Constitution does not authorize a census for the purposes of apportioning representation. The word used is “enumeration”. In this capacity, it is only to be a head count and no other questions can be asked.
A census is only authorized by USC for the purposes of apportioning taxation amongst the states. Since the improperly ratified 16th aAmendment did away with this, there is no longer any consitutional authority for a census. Only with a census can personal questions such as U.S. Citizenship be asked.
The Senators sponsoring this bill might as well write it to only count registered voters since all registered voters must be U.S. Citizens.
I remember a line from my elementary school play about the revolutionary war (Hey, Miss Rogers, it did get me to remember my history). It went, “no taxation without representation.” I am don’t belive that non citizens should actually vote, but how about all those people that live here legally (not those just travelly through, i.e. tourists) and pay all the taxes that citizens do? They deserve some kind of represenation.
But also consider all the other things that rely on census data and just numbers of people that could change with such a law. (don’t think that just because this is a voting law that others things won’t change) Federal revenue sharing is just one. Just because one state may have a large population of legal residents that are not citizens does that mean there isn’t costs associated with that population?
I agree with #8. To expand a little, the people who wrote the amendendment did know the lanuage, but they also knew that there were a large amount of “illegal” residents. The freed salves were just one group, there were also plenty of people in each house district that were not citizens, in all states. Some of these people were members of their own family who just showed up on the shores of America. A balance needed to be struck that allowed only citizens to vote but covered everyone.
— after the political storm
• As long as there are no firm permanent rules provided by a “living” interpretation of the US constitution —
• The next national election must focus on natural born citizenship. Going forward, the new / latest interpretation provided by the “living” constitution must go beyond the eligibility of POTUS/CINC and either grandfather or immediately retroactively withdraw all voting rights including ballot access of anyone not already a natural born citizen.
• So called anchor babies will not be allowed to vote or hold office — but can eventually be one of the two parents of a natural born citizen.
Naturalized citizens henceforth will not be allowed to vote, hold office or otherwise have ballot access — but can eventually be a parent of a natural born citizen.
#8 No it is in Section 2. See
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/032.pdf
You’ll want page 369 in the PDF file. Section 2 starts with the part that you quoted, and then it is restricted by “But.”. Section 3 is disqualification from office by those deemed to have engaged in rebellion.
The 13th Amendment mooted the 3/5 rule for apportioning representatives, so there really wasn’t any necessity to change the apportionment provisions of Article I, Section 2. But Congress was concerned that the Southern States would be entitled to greater representation than they had before the Civil War. Even though the new State constitutions required Negro suffrage, they were concerned that States would impose property and literacy requirements so high that only a relatively few persons could vote for Congress, even though apportionment was based on the total population.
At first they considered basing apportionment directly on adult male suffrage. If a State cut out 80% of the voters, they would lose 80% of their representation. They weren’t necessarily concerned that this would discriminate against poor or illiterate people. But then they started doing some calculation. New England States found that they had disproportionately female populations, because 2nd and later sons went West because they would not inherit the family farm. And there were also variation in the number of children. Frontier areas initially had fewer children. And States with more children reasoned that the adults were voting on behalf of the children of their community. And Western States wanted to continue to include non-citizens, since many settlers were non-citizens hoping to establish themselves by settling cheap land (sweat equity). It was common for the establishment of local self-government in States and counties to be dependent on the number of persons in the area. If you could have your own government, you didn’t care that the hard working German helped you get it, especially if he didn’t much participate in political matters. And besides Southern States had few foreigners, so that exclusion of non-citizens would actually increase the proportion of Southern representatives.
So they came up with the final form of the 14th Amendment that reiterates what Article I, Section 2 does (post 13th Amendment), and modified the base population based on the portion of the adult male population that could vote.
But re-reading S. 1688, it is not really this part of Section 2 that Bennett is aiming at. It is rather the meaning of “respective numbers” and “in the state”.
In Franklin v Massachusetts, the US Supreme Court agreed that overseas federal employees and their dependents could be included in the apportionment count for representatives, even though someone who is “in Germany” can not physically be “in Wisconsin” or any other State. Much of the decision is about regulatory authority to include the overseas employees (Congress had not specifically ordered their inclusion, though they had considered doing so). But Part IV of the decision was an 8-0 concurrence (Scalia didn’t join the concurrence because he didn’t think those challenging the census had standing).
In Part IV noted that the Congress from the 1790 Census had recognized that persons were sometimes absent from their State for long periods of time, so that they defined “usual abode” as the basis for determining which State to assign a person to. In describing the relationship between a person and a State, Justice O’Connor wrote, “the phrase [‘in each state’] may mean more than mere physical presence, and has been used to include some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place.”
A citizen of State is a US citizen who resides in a State (as per 14th Amendment, Section 1). So a citizen who resides in a State clearly has allegiance to the State. US citizens who reside outside the limits of the 50 States may also have an allegiance to a State (which is recognized by their retaining voting rights). And permanent resident aliens may also have at least nominal allegiance or affiliation.
But what about aliens who are legally present for only a fixed period of time or duration. Certainly not tourists. But what if they overstay their tourist visa? When do they become entitled to representation? At the time they make a decision to violate the terms of their visa, or when they actually violate its terms, by overstaying, or taking employment beyond that authorized by the visa. Should persons be represented because of their illegal activity?
BTW, you are misreading S. 1688. It provides for exclusion from apportionment counts for non-citizens who are not lawfully present in the United States. It is perhaps not artfully written, since citizens inherently have a right of legal presence.
#10 There is no constitutional requirement limiting voting to citizens. In the past, several States have permitted permanent resident aliens to vote.
Others have approached the issue of political balance among the States from a different angle. The sponsor of the national popular vote scheme in Pennsylvania argued that it would give Pennsylvania greater political power because Pennsylvania has a relatively large share of voters to population. Pennsylvania is among the oldest of the States (older persons vote more), fewer children, has a not very large share of foreign born, and a high share of those are naturalized citizens.
#9 see http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2006-03.pdf
It is lengthy, but does have some insight into difficulties in counting persons who reside in hotels,
My gleaning is that hotel managers are asked which occupants are permanent residents, and have them fill out an individual census report (for persons living in group quarters).
#16 Thanks for the info. I think the idea that foreign tourists are somehow unbalancing the census is silly. No more so than American who happen to be on vacarion when the census takers come calling. This unconstituional bill is simply a blatant ploy by right-wingers from small states to increase their already disproportionate power.
It’s worth noting that the states represented by these senators (with the exception of Utah) already get back much more from Washington than they pay in, while NY, CA, NJ and IL, among others get royally shafted.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
The small states are already over-represented in the Senate and Electoral College. Enough is enough!
# Jerry Says:
October 17th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Aside from the fact that the constitution mandates PERSONS, which includes all humans, how are census workers paid $10/hour walking around neighborhoods supposed to verify citizen vs non-citizen and legal vs illegal aliens? Even trained immigration officers with access to databases have difficulty.
“As for counting tourists, do you have any data to suggest that this happens? Are hotels, motels, etc. polled for the census? Do tourists actually reply to the census? What about US citizens with multiple residences-are they counted twice?
Please Demo Rep, I want a response that includes actual data (assuming you know what that word means) not conjecture and hyperbole.”
I worked as a followup census taker in 2000.
Multiple residences: The residence where the respondent lived in the most for the prior year.
I received some census forms for the followup for motels/hotels, but those were of a nature where the resident did not have another residence-evected or something like that. I determined, thru a series of questions the normal residence on 4-1-2000
Most other circumstances for hotels et al would be in the mulitple occupancy division. I turned over any such that I ran across to that division. 2 cases- a home for battered women. I was instructed to go to the county for information, as an exception to the above rule. theother time turned out to be a sereis of buildings for recovering drug/alcohol men. I obtained basic followup info for the census taker for that situation.
Census workers for the census are normally followup.
1: when no returnis filed for an addrss
2: When some formulae determines that the returned form fell outside certain parameters [12 people in a 2 bedrm apartment, which turned out to be accurate]
3: a certain percentage of retuns are followed up to serve as a running accuracy check.
One interesting contact informed me that on 4-1 he was in jail for assault. He was not counted by me, since the jail would already have dealt with his residency status.
I like the idea of the census not counting illegal aliens, although it would probably take a Constitutional amendment to change this.
One thing, though, that I remember that annoys me is a statement that the census bureau wanted the INS to ease up on immigration enforcement in 2010, because otherwise illegal aliens might be too scared of Feds to talk to census workers and might get missed in the census. My feeling is, good. If people who are not supposed to be here are going to avoid getting counted and so reduce the “rotten borough” problem that we have, I don’t see a problem. Maybe census workers have to count them if they find them, but INS should not be under an obligation to make finding them easier.
Census workers are paid closer to 22.00 and hour, not 10
I’d be happy to not slam a door in a census worker’s face again if the following things happen:
1. States actually follow the ruled law and make their Congressional Representatives at-large as US Term Limits v. Thornton requires.
2. The Congressional Representatives actually start representing the people.
3. They actually just counted heads and not demanded a life story.
As a person who has never voted for an incumbent or major-party House candidate (and probably never will!), I resent the implication that these corrupt fools are representing me, because they are not, and I see no reason to be counted as part of their constituency.
#17 The issue is not foreign tourists. If they have a tourist visa and they have not overstayed its limits or otherwise violated its terms, they are lawfully present. Most will not be counted in the census, because the place of their usual residence is not where the census bureau found them.
The individual census form first asks the person whether their current location is their usual residence or place where they usually stay. Regardless whether they answer yes or no to that question, they fill out the rest of the census form. And then at the end they are asked for their usual residence, which includes a space for indicating a foreign country.
Presumably there is some attempt to reconcile such persons, by checking to see whether or not they were recorded at their usual residence, or should be omitted from the census count.
#19 The constitutional issue is not so clear cut as it may appear. While “persons” is clear-cut (if we ignore issues about when personhood begins and when it ends), “respective numbers” and “persons in each State” are less so. “persons in each State” is not in the original Constititution, but rather only in Article XIV. And Article XIV does not change how the apportionment is made. There are no slaves, so 0 * 3/5 is 0. So does “in each State” have any meaning at all. And what does “whole number of persons” mean. Does that mean that persons who were lying across a State line are not counted, or what?
So most likely, the key phrase is “respective numbers”. So what does it mean for someone to be enumerated with respect to a particular State. Congress has determined it includes federal employees, both civilian and military and their dependents who are outside the country at the time of the census. Congress has also determined that the “People of the several States” includes certain persons who live overseas and may have no intent of ever living in the United States for purposes of choosing the representatives that are apportioned on the basis of the census. But Congress excludes non-citizens who have lived in the United States, even spouses of citizens, who now reside overseas from membership in the “People of the several states”.
So how can one be among the “respective numbers” of Kansans when one is an illegal alien in Topeka but not a member of the “People of Kansas” when deported to Tegucigalpa? It is the type of definitional ambiguity that Congress is in the best position to resolve, and that is what Senator Bennett’s S.1688 attempts to resolve.
#23-There is a difference between the illegal alien in Topeka and the one in Tegucigalpa-the ones in Topeka are paying sales taxes and property taxes (directly or indirectly). Many, perhaps most, are also paying federal taxes (the IRS happily collects taxes every year on behalf of millions of people who don’t have valid SSNs).
But let’s put illegals aside. The tens of millions of legal non-citizens absolutely pay every single tax that citizens pay. Why shouldn’t they be counted in apportioning representatives, especially as they are undoubtedly “persons”?
Sen Bennett is simply trying to gain partisan advantage by adding to the already excessive over-representation of the smaller red states. Certainly, those on the other side may be partisan as well, but at least in this case they have the Constutution and elemental fairness on their side.
How many ILLEGAL FOREIGN *persons* in the U.S.A. at the moment — and on 1 April 2010 ???
With many of the safe seat extremist leftwing Donkey U.S.A. Reps. in inner city ghetto gerrymander districts (having lots of ILLEGAL FOREIGN persons in such districts), the Bennett bill has about a 0.0000001 percent chance of passing.
Such Donkeys get elected with a MUCH below average number of votes — since such Donkey gerrymander districts have a MUCH below average number of LEGAL voters.
ALL part of the growing EVIL indirect minority rule ROT in the U.S.A. regime and the 50 State regimes — about 70 percent are very small and below average — 435 U.S.A. Reps. / 50 = 8.7 average Reps per State.
One guess what a regime like North Korea, Russia or Iran does with ILLEGAL FOREIGN *persons* inside such regimes ??? Sorry – NOT count them in any census (except perhaps in a prison camp census — if such persons are NOT shot as being spies / invaders).
P.R. —- Total Votes [of U.S.A. citizens] / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.
Much too difficult for the armies of New Age leftwing statists who apparently love having foreign folks take over the U.S.A. ???
——————-
-CITE-
13 USC Sec. 141 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 13 – CENSUS
CHAPTER 5 – CENSUSES
SUBCHAPTER II – POPULATION, HOUSING, AND UNEMPLOYMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 141. Population and other census information
-STATUTE-
(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years
thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first
day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the
“decennial census date”, in such form and content as he may
determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special
surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is
authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection
(a) of this section as required for the apportionment of
Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be
completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the
Secretary to the President of the United States.
(c) The officers or public bodies having initial responsibility
for the legislative apportionment or districting of each State may,
not later than 3 years before the decennial census date, submit to
the Secretary a plan identifying the geographic areas for which
specific tabulations of population are desired. Each such plan
shall be developed in accordance with criteria established by the
Secretary, which he shall furnish to such officers or public bodies
not later than April 1 of the fourth year preceding the decennial
census date. Such criteria shall include requirements which assure
that such plan shall be developed in a nonpartisan manner. Should
the Secretary find that a plan submitted by such officers or public
bodies does not meet the criteria established by him, he shall
consult to the extent necessary with such officers or public bodies
in order to achieve the alterations in such plan that he deems
necessary to bring it into accord with such criteria. Any issues
with respect to such plan remaining unresolved after such
consultation shall be resolved by the Secretary, and in all cases
he shall have final authority for determining the geographic format
of such plan. Tabulations of population for the areas identified in
any plan approved by the Secretary shall be completed by him as
expeditiously as possible after the decennial census date and
reported to the Governor of the State involved and to the officers
or public bodies having responsibility for legislative
apportionment or districting of such State, except that such
tabulations of population of each State requesting a tabulation
plan, and basic tabulations of population of each other State,
shall, in any event, be completed, reported, and transmitted to
each respective State within one year after the decennial census
date.
**** [d-f OMITTED]
(g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a
census of population, housing, and matters relating to population
and housing.
—-
Bennett Bill operational parts –
S. 1688
SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP OR LAWFUL PRESENCE STATUS ON CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES.
In conducting the 2010 decennial census and every decennial census thereafter, the Secretary of Commerce shall include, in any questionnaire distributed or otherwise used for the purpose of determining the total population by States, a checkbox or other similar option for respondents to indicate citizenship status or lawful presence in the United States.
SEC. 3. PREVENTION OF CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTIONMENT DISTORTIONS.
(a) Adjustments To Prevent Distortions- Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
`(g) The Secretary shall make such adjustments in total population figures as may be necessary, using such methods and procedures as the Secretary determines feasible and appropriate, in order that those who are not United States citizens or are not lawfully present in the United States are not counted in tabulating population under subsection (b) for the purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to supersede section 195 of this title.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act To provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress’, of June 18, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking `as ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population’ and inserting `as ascertained and reported under section 141 of title 13, United States Code, for each decennial census of population’.
The 30,000 rule should be applied again. I’d reapportion the seats as follows:
State pop./# Cong. Districts+1= Ratio
Ratio/30,000= New # of Seats
So, if you had 400,000 people and 1 rep., the ratio would be 200,000 and divide this by 30,000 and it gives almost 7 new seats. If you had 30,000,000 people and 53 reps., the ratio would be under 600,000 people and it gives almost 20 new seats.
#24 “but let’s put illegals aside.”
Richard Winger has misinterpreted S. 1688 as to exclude all non-citizens from the apportionment count. It in fact makes a distinction between persons who have a legal presence in this country and those who do not.
So since you appear agreeable (if not favorable) to excluding illegal aliens for apportionment purposes, then you should support Sen. Bennett’s S.1688.
“whether the person could vote; and if not, was it due to commission of a felony, or an act of rebellion.”
I live in DC , and it is not clear to me which of these exclusions might apply in my case. I have no felony record (quite the contrary) and my only “rebellion” is to say, a la Charles Dickens’ young lad “Please Sir, may I have my VOTE?”
#28 Congress has the full authority under the apportionment provisions of the 14th Amendment and Article I, Section 8 to include residents of the District of Columbia in the apportionment population of Maryland, or for that matter of any State or States. See HR 665 (in particular Section 2).
#27-How is a census taker supposed to determine who is legal vs illegal? Or even citizenship for that matter?
Since when is D.C. a sovereign State in the Union ???
TITLE 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY [parts]
PART IV – INSPECTION, APPREHENSION, EXAMINATION, EXCLUSION, AND REMOVAL
1226. Apprehension and detention of aliens.
1226a. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas
corpus; judicial review.
1227. Deportable aliens.
1228. Expedited removal of aliens convicted of committing
aggravated felonies.
1229. Initiation of removal proceedings.
1229a. Removal proceedings.
1229b. Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status.
1229c. Voluntary departure.
1230. Records of admission.
1231. Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed.
1232. Enhancing efforts to combat the trafficking of
children.
—-
PART VII – REGISTRATION OF ALIENS [derived from 1940 Alien Registration Act — WW II stuff — used to arrest lots of Axis foreign folks in the U.S.A. on and after 7 Dec 1941]
1301. Alien seeking entry; contents.
1302. Registration of aliens.
1303. Registration of special groups.
1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting.
1305. Notices of change of address.
1306. Penalties.
—-
PART VIII – GENERAL PENALTY PROVISIONS
1321. Prevention of unauthorized landing of aliens.
1322. Bringing in aliens subject to denial of admission on a
health-related ground; persons liable; clearance
papers; exceptions; “person” defined.
1323. Unlawful bringing of aliens into United States.
1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.
1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens.
1324b. Unfair immigration-related employment practices.
1324c. Penalties for document fraud.
1324d. Civil penalties for failure to depart.
1325. Improper entry by alien.
1326. Reentry of removed aliens.
1327. Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter.
1328. Importation of alien for immoral purpose.
—-
SUBCHAPTER V – ALIEN TERRORIST REMOVAL PROCEDURES
1531. Definitions.
1532. Establishment of removal court.
1533. Removal court procedure.
1534. Removal hearing.
1535. Appeals.
1536. Custody and release pending removal hearing.
1537. Custody and release after removal hearing.
—-
Of course New Age usual suspects want to allow a whole lot of ILLEGAL aliens to magically become legal by changing a whole lot of law sections.
#30 S.1688 would provide a check box (or similar device) where the respondent indicates his citizenship status or legal presence.
Historically, census forms have included a citizenship question, and have also asked for related questions such as whether or not a person was foreign born, place of birth, year of immigration, and year of naturalization.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/pol02-ma.pdf
Since 1950 the census form has been split into short and long forms, with the short form containing a small subset of the questions in the long form, and with the long form distributed to a sample of households.
In 2000, citizenship status, place of birth, year of immigration, were asked in the long form.
For 2010, the long form has been discontinued, replaced with the American Community Survey, which is a continuous survey, which over a 5-year period produces a sample equivalent to that produced by the long form.
Essentially if the long form were distributed to one in eight households in an area, the ACS would be conducted with 1 in 8 x 5 x 12 households each month.
S.1688 would forbid the Census Bureau to use sampling, so the citizenship and legal presence status checkbox would be included on the short form.