Because it is time we brought back similar operation in scope, scale, and cost of enforcement. It was a historical link to show you the context of what was happening in 1954 and before - after you made the claim that enforcement was "basically non-existent before 1950" - which is only partially true. Why don't you ask all the Jewish people in ships turned back from U.S. ports before WW2 about enforcement being non-existent?
It is not a question of legality. It is a question of what will produce the most accurate census. I don't take a stand here, but I think if there is a reason that the question was dropped, and there must have been, then the first step is to know exactly why it was dropped and is the reasoning behind that decision still valid, or is it invalid. Without that information how could anyone, including all of of here on ET come to a any conclusion.
Cool story bro, this is a thread about the census and its impact on cities and states and those who reside in them. Whether you believe if ICE would use the data is irrelevant, the perception is real among immigrants. You're welcome to start your own thread on immigration enforcement.
Hmmm. Why would they want it on there if not for enforcement? Almost like they deliberately don't want illegals to respond... because they know they won't if that question is on there. Which leads to the next question... whats the hidden ulterior motive here? There has to be one. I'll have to read up on the Census and what all its used for before I can push a conspiracy theory here. Do they use Census results for redistricting Congressional districts? EDIT. Yes they do. https://datadrivendetroit.org/blog/2018/01/18/redistricting-and-the-census/
Not sure how much of a difference (how meaningful) it would make in terms of real dollars in their coffers... but it certainly won't help sanctuary cities. I wouldn't think. Little jab there.
They end up being net tax providers, so the penalization of sanctuary cities is purely political (after all, immigrants use schools, bridges, roads, etc..)
You have it backwards... "Sanctuary City" is not a legal term, there is no formal definition of it in any written law; it is a political term when cities choose to self-identify as when they do not cooperate with national law enforcement agencies. Liberal Mayors have self proclaimed this non-legal political label as a "badge of honor" to resist Trump. Enforcement of laws already on the books is not "purely political", it is simply known as "law enforcement". The enforcement of laws on the books. When a police officer writes you a traffic ticket they are not making a political statement, they are enforcing a law. The same is true with immigration laws. Illegal Immigrant's financial contributions whether real or perceived do not negate the fact that they broke laws by coming here illegally and obtaining false SSN#s and identity via identity theft. I can't go to Mexico or Canada as an American and say "hey I am a net tax provider and I use your schools and roads...you can't deport me!". I would have no legal standing in their system to use that argument as a defense.
There should be a citizenship question in all versions of the census questionnaire. There was no valid reason to remove it.