Think your job is rough

imported post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061405067.html?hpid=newswell

Not a job I would want. Ever.

imported post

Since follow-up house calls began in late April, there have been 252 incidents in which Census workers have been harmed or threatened, including 11 times when shots were fired at them and 86 times when they were threatened with such weapons as guns, axes and crossbows.

Click to expand...

Good lord! All those incidents over a population count.

Our census taker persisted in asking us questions and said it was the law that we answer. I only told him that two adults lived in the house and to forget the rest of the questions.

I know that there are many out there who don't want the government asking questions, especially on one's own property. I'm one too. But I never would have threatened him. Just tell him to go away and close the door.

I wonder just how many of those threats listed in the article went without investigation...

imported post

I've been working various census operations since January. The only weapons that have been used against me were locked gates and rudeness.

imported post

The best part is that being a government job, I'd bet money that census workers are explicitly forbidden from carrying (openly or concealed) under any circumstance.

imported post

That is correct.

However, I understand and accept their reasoning. We are "from the guvmint." Already we are not trusted. Carrying a gun will intimidate further.

One reason folks won't talk to us is that they fear we are (or will share information with) law enforcement. And, face it, some of the people we need to count are criminals. We still have to count them. We have to earn enough trust to ask those ten questions. A gun will spook them.

BTW, we will not share one iota of information with law enforcement. A drug deal could go down right in front of us during an interview, and we are forbidden by law from sharing the information we have.

imported post

novasig226r wrote:

Since follow-up house calls began in late April, there have been 252 incidents in which Census workers have been harmed or threatened, including 11 times when shots were fired at them and 86 times when they were threatened with such weapons as guns, axes and crossbows.

Click to expand...

Good lord! All those incidents over a population count.

Our census taker persisted in asking us questions and said it was the law that we answer. I only told him that two adults lived in the house and to forget the rest of the questions.

I know that there are many out there who don't want the government asking questions, especially on one's own property. I'm one too. But I never would have threatened him. Just tell him to go away and close the door.

I wonder just how many of those threats listed in the article went without investigation...

Click to expand...

There are a lot of workers I have run into that do not know what questions we have to answer by law. So they don't seem to understand the word NO, I feel sorry for the many who have been hurt just because "they are from the government". Yet those who do more than what is by required law and refuse to leave the property when asked, I do not feel sorry for. What drives me nuts is they continue to ask question to our neighbors that we are not required by law to answer, thank God everyone who leaves near me has agreed to refuse any questions about our neighbors. I see it as another easy task they screw up, they government is push more for questions that we by law do not have to answer. Yet they wounder why we do not trust the government. That and the many people they do hire I would never trust with my info.

imported post

Here is a statement read to or by every respondent:

You are required by law to provide the information requested. These federal laws can be found in the United States Code, Title 13 (Sections 9, 141, 193, 214, and 221) and Title 44 (Section 2108). Please visit our Web site at < http://www.census.gov/2010census >and click "Protecting your Answers to learn more about our privacy policy and data protection.

Click to expand...

If you refuse, we will attempt to find a proxy to answer the survey questions. The could be a neighbor, a landlord, or anyone else who might have the requested information. We prefer to get voluntary cooperation and are trained to be persuasive and not demanding.

However, with each successive operation we become more dogged in getting the information from those from whom we were unable to acquire the information in the previous operation.

No census worker should try to get on or stay on your property once told to stay away or go away. If you feel that a census worker is acting inappropriately, call your Local Census Office and report him. The first thing he should have said upon approaching you is his name. If you were not there, he should have left a Notice of Visit containing, in the first blank, his name.

imported post

Nope. Leave. Trespass. Sheriff. Wisconsin presumes trespass notice.

imported post

The Census folks can quote any law/title/chapter they want. If it isn't backed by the constitution, it's not required. Last I checked, the only thing that fine document says is a count of the people.

imported post

The specific questions asked are to implement the purpose of counting everyone as called for in the Constitution.

Some people will be counted twice. They have more than one home. They were counted at college or in jail as well as at home, etc. By asking identifying questions, the bureau will be able to catch and eliminate folks who are counted twice. When folks refuse to provide answers, they thwart the constitutional process.

I fully understand why folks don't want to give this information. They fear that this information will be used for purposes other than counting the population, that the information will be shared with others, even other government or law enforcement agencies.

By law, the detailed information is protected for 72 years. Only statistical summaries can be released prior to that time. The Census Bureau has the finest record in the world of protecting confidential information. We cherish this record and put forth every effort to protect it.

In any event, the laws that some deem unconstitutional have been held constitutional by the courts. While our approach is not to force answers using the law as a stick, but to cajole answers using reason as a carrot, your answers are required by law. If you refuse to answer the questions, you are acting unlawfully.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

By law, the detailed information is protected for 72 years. Only statistical summaries can be released prior to that time. The Census Bureau has the finest record in the world of protecting confidential information. We cherish this record and put forth every effort to protect it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen how data can't even be kept secure by Sandia National Labs, White House leaks, FBI/CIA/NSA/whatever leaks, etc. Considering that personally identifiable information is sitting on the kitchen counters of random census workers homes all across the nation, I can't really say that I get the warm fuzzies about data security.

When they are no longer over-reporting 'jobs created' to help the administration inflate the employment numbers, or telling census workers to 'spend more time on the paperwork' (happening to some folks I personally know who are working for the census right now) to inflate their hours at MY expense, then I'll start trusting them a bit more. In the meantime, they got my form back, with the constitutionally-required fields completed, sent me a 2nd copy for no apparent reason, also at my expense, and overall appear to be just as incompetent as any other government ageny.

That said, if I needed work, and census was the only thing I could find, you'd better f'n believe I'd take it AND be very much armed while out and about (concealed of course.) Too many shady circumstances to walk around with nothing but a laminated ID card on a neck lanyard and a cell phoneto 'protect' me.

imported post

This got me to thinking which is always bad so you don't have to go there. We loudly and emphatically proclaim our rights as stated in both the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights yet when something comes along that we may not like we just as loudly proclaim it even though it is directly part of that same Constitustion. Article 1 Section 2 proclaims that there will be an enumberation of the people.As part of that enumeration it will be necessary togather information on age, sex and race. It also says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct". If all you are going to provide is that 2 people are living in your house and "get off my property then don't proclaim the rest of the Constitution. If you are not going to accept all of it then don't accept part of it.

It doesn't directly say that you have to provide your name but age, sex, and race are part of the original Constitution and then whatever law requires.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

This got me to thinking which is always bad so you don't have to go there. We loudly and emphatically proclaim our rights as stated in both the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights yet when something comes along that we may not like we just as loudly proclaim it even though it is directly part of that same Constitustion. Article 1 Section 2 proclaims that there will be an enumberation of the people.As part of that enumeration it will be necessary togather information on age, sex and race. It also says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct". If all you are going to provide is that 2 people are living in your house and "get off my property then don't proclaim the rest of the Constitution. If you are not going to accept all of it then don't accept part of it.

It doesn't directly say that you have to provide your name but age, sex, and race are part of the original Constitution and then whatever law requires.

Click to expand...

+111

imported post

That clause by no means gives the fed free reign to 'direct' in ANY manner whatsoever. The one and ONLY purpose is to count the number of people. sex, race, etc. is absolutely not required in order to obtain that count.

The law could say that you have to stand on your head naked while reciting a pledge to goats on a Thursday to provide your census answers. Just because "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct" is in the text doesn't mean that the law can step outside of the "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years," context.


Edit: I find it particularly screwed up that the very same government that would label someone a racist in a heartbeat (being from Arizona, let's jsut say we hear more than enough of that crap already) and that supposedly claims that all races are equal, would have the balls to ask race on the census. Affirmative action at its finest =)


PT111 wrote:

It doesn't directly say that you have to provide your name but age, sex, and race are part of the original Constitution and then whatever law requires.

Click to expand...

I'd sure like to see that as I have yet to locate any source that claims (or proves) any of those criteria to be in the constitution, original or amended.

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

imported post

"Article 1 Section 2 proclaims that there will be an enumberation of the people.As part of that enumeration it will be necessary togather information on age, sex and race. It also says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct". If all you are going to provide is that 2 people are living in your house and "get off my property then don't proclaim the rest of the Constitution. If you are not going to accept all of it then don't accept part of it."

By Law Direct- meaning the Census can ask any question and require an answer for any question that is lawful. The government is prohibited from violating a citizens privacy- which is the first law that the Census requirements must abide by. The government is prohibited from unreasonable search of citizens and from demanding "papers" (to be secure in property). This is the second law that the Census must abide by. First, the Census cannot trespass. Second, the Census is limited in which questions it may lawfully require.

The Census can ASK you whatever it wants... You are only Required to supply certain information.


Thoreau and I agree on this.

imported post

Thoreau wrote:

That clause by no means gives the fed free reign to 'direct' in ANY manner whatsoever. The one and ONLY purpose is to count the number of people. sex, race, etc. is absolutely not required in order to obtain that count.

The law could say that you have to stand on your head naked while reciting a pledge to goats on a Thursday to provide your census answers. Just because "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct" is in the text doesn't mean that the law can step outside of the "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years," context.

Click to expand...

Doing so would not help achieve the goal of the Census. Asking identifying information to eliminate duplicate counting helps achieve the goal.

Counting must be systematic. There are other ways of being systematic. For example, we could require everyone, apart from census workers remain home for a given period of time and then have a census worker visit every home and do a head count at that time. We could make everyone go to a specific location in their community and stick their thumb in a bottle of ink while census workers count the number of thumb-sticks. We could make lists of identifying information and count all unique sets of identifying information.

We do the last one. Two hundred years of experience have proved the efficacy of that technique when you have to conduct the Census over a period of months in a mobile society.

That is the eminently reasonable Manner which the Law directs. That was a policy decision. If you do not like it, I suggest that you advocate for another Manner to be implemented in Law. I suggest that you not act unlawfully--especially when we expect others to act lawfully, such as LEOs during a stop.

imported post

The Ape says; "I don't like a whole lot about the government, but I sure do love that Census program they have."

imported post

In the very first Census, the Founders had to provide their names:

http://www.1930census.com/1790_census_questions.php

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

The Ape says; "I don't like a whole lot about the government, but I sure do love that Census program they have."

Click to expand...

I say no such thing. I am talking about the lawful, constitutional, and reasonable nature of the method of conducting the Census.

It does make your need to trash my arguments easier when you misrepresent them totally. That is called a "strawman argument" and demonstrates rhetorical inadequacy.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

In the very first Census, the Founders had to provide their names:

http://www.1930census.com/1790_census_questions.php

Click to expand...

Yeah 1790 isn't the generation we have a problem with...

Try 2010!

Just for shits and giggles... I'll pee on your parade.1790 Census.

• Name of Head of Household (First / Last)
• Number of Free White Males of Sixteen Years and upwards
• Number of Free White Males under Sixteen Years
• Number of Free White Females
• Number of all other Free persons
• Number of Slaves
• Town or district of residence (sometimes recorded)

1880 Census

[line]
HMMMMMMMMMM I'm sure the Founding Fathers were only asked 7 Total Questions for a reason. How many Total Questions are on Your questionnaire?