Question

Public health class question, ASAP please and need to be detail

The Federal government recently added a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Some groups oppose this based on a civil rights perspective.   However, such a step will also have significant public health implications. In the context of a public health perspective explain how such a question could be problematic. why it would be problematic and what impact it would have on public health programing. choose one specific impact only.

I am interested in studying a rare disease that also is highly stigmatized and a long incubation period.   I am interested in studying multiple exposures in a single study and I am interested in studying the association with those risk factors.   Please tell me what study design would be best for this study, what the best recruitment method would be, and what bias i should be concerned about. should the study be retrospective or prospective? would the findings allow for the calculation of the odds Ratio, Risk Ratio or both?   Justify your answer fully.

Answer 1

he public should applaud the Trump administration and the Commerce Department for reinstating a citizenship question on the 2020 census form. Despite the howls of hysterical protests coming from political partisans, this is long overdue and in accord with historical practice.

The Constitution requires a "genuine Enumeration" consistently, and the need of the evaluation, as laid out by Karen Dunn Kelley, the under secretary for Economic Affairs at the Commerce Department in her March 26 declaration, is "getting finished and exact information." That information is utilized for everything from authorization of the Voting Rights Act to the dissemination of government financing.

We have additionally been amidst a combative discussion for over 10 years about movement. To have an educated discussion, shouldn't we have precise data about the subject/noncitizen populace of the nation? Truth be told, even the United Nations prescribes that its part nations ask a citizenship question on their enumeration studies, and nations running from Australia to Germany to Indonesia all make this inquiry. Just in the U.S. is this considered at all disputable — and it shouldn't be.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who claim this is “irresponsible” and “unconstitutional,” show their lack of understanding of both the history of the census and the Constitution. President Thomas Jefferson first proposed a citizenship question in 1800. It was added to the statistics in 1820 with an inquiry that requested the quantity of "nonnatives not naturalized" in the family unit. As Kelley calls attention to, earlier decennial statistics reviews "reliably asked citizenship inquiries up until 1950."

At the point when the evaluation changed to conveying two distinctive enumeration shapes, the short frame and the long frame, the long frame (which went to one out of each six family units) contained a citizenship question as shown by the 2000 frame.

the citizenship question?

The involvement of people like Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach — the Kansas secretary of state, who is a leading proponent of the idea that voter fraud by noncitizens is rampant — says everything you need to know about what the real rationale for the question was. These are people who, alongside Attorney General Jeff Sessions and different individuals from the Trump organization, have long had a profoundly hostile to worker plan. They're trying to reclassify and rebuild American popular government to protect their political power when the socioeconomics of this nation are evolving essentially. The registration, the freedom of the Justice Department and the government courts, casting a ballot rights and casting a ballot get to — these are all center elements of our vote based system that are being weaponized for a factional motivation, a plan resulting from profound enemy of foreigner, enemies of non-white individuals assessment.

This isn’t the first time that nativists have sought to have a citizenship question included in the census. It’s just that it’s always been a fringe agenda, and now that fringe is in political power.  Furthermore, this inquiry is only the foothold. It runs as an inseparable unit with endeavors to cleanse voters and confine casting a ballot rights; with moves to strip citizenship from American natives; and with plans to deny bequest citizenship, which is ensured by the fourteenth Amendment.

Isn’t it reasonable for the government to want to have data on citizenship?

Well, for starters, states already know that information. They have it through the American Community Survey, which the Census Bureau sends out to about 2.5 percent of households every year,

furthermore, which solicits an expansive range from inquiries concerning employments, lodging, schools, citizenship status and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Be that as it may, the order of the decennial registration is one thing alone: to include everyone this nation. It isn't to be utilized as an angling endeavor to get arbitrary data on individuals. Likewise, we realize that in this organization, a citizenship question isn't favorable.

I am interested in studying the association with those risk factors.

We know who the hardest to count communities are: communities of color, rural communities, urban low-income households, immigrants, children under 5.  Indeed, even before the citizenship question was included, there were colossal levels of dread among settler networks specifically around revealing individual information to the administration. Think about the end result for the Dreamers, who were advised by the Obama organization to believe the government and enlist with the end goal to get some level of soundness in their status. At that point the Trump organization yanked that far from them, and their status is currently in limbo.

Remember also that a lot of immigrant families are mixed status — there are undocumented family members living in the same homes as legal immigrants and U.S. citizens — so the repercussions of this fear are significant. The Census Bureau experienced uncommon dread about secrecy of reactions in September 2017 pretests, even without being gotten some information about citizenship. The worry, which is reasonable, is that their information will be utilized against them for authorization purposes or something else.

How does the fight over the citizenship question relate to debates over redistricting?

First, the census count serves as the basis for states to redraw their district lines every decade. Under the Constitution, those districts must be equally sized. The Supreme Court has been to a great degree requesting about the level of accuracy in estimating correspondence.

In a 2016 case called Evenwel v. Abbott, a gathering of voters in Texas requested that the court decide that just qualified voters ought to be checked toward leveling locale. The judges collectively dismissed that contention and decided that states may draw areas dependent on the aggregate number of individuals in those limits, not simply residents or qualified voters.

That was clearly right. The Constitution requires lawmakers to represent every single person in their district, not just certain people or fractions of people.