Federal Census Blank 2009-2025 Form

Yes, you do. Census helps the government/private companies know the number and the types of people in your town/state/country. When you provide information, you get better service.If you're worried about your personal information getting leaked, don't be. A census usually only requires your name and the no. of people in your house (depends on the scale of the census)You got to nothing to lose anyway. Just give the information. It'll take less than 5 minutes.

I do not believe the Census Bureau has stopped sending census-takers. Rather, they have largely automated some of the decennial census data where they are confident of receiving accurate counts and, instead, focus their census-taking person counters in areas where they may be uncertain of getting an accurate count.Not too long ago, the Census Bureau asked Congress if the decennial census could be based on sampling the population. Congress, knowing that the counts serve as the basis for representation in the US House of Representatives, said no. In short, not only must the Census be based on reported observations (takers and mailed-in counts), this method also preserves some of the flaws in the system that can allow states to challenge the Census counts (and number of representatives derived from them) in court.

Not participating in or not allowing to c0nduct a population census may ultimately harm the people’s objective. A good example is available from India. During late seventies people of the Eastern state of Assam felt that the migrants to the state are taking away job opportunities and depriving the local people of economic development and launched an agitation that continued for a long time. In the situation it was not possible to conduct the 1981 census. However, had the census been conducted in a peaceful atmosphere, the data would have proved the increasing levels of migration into the state and bolstered the claim of those who were agitating.

I rarely answer the phone if I can determine from caller ID that it is someone I do not know.But…About 10 years ago, the US Census sent me a form to fill out. It was not the normal census form, but rather the “extended form”. They apparently do this for certain households to gather more data about the US Population.I dutifully filled out every question - but in all cases used exactly the same answer: “4”. This was the number of persons in my household at the time - and is the only information the government is actually authorized to take in the census.Apparently I made them a little miffed… after 10+ visits to my home, at least as many phone calls, including 3 from the regional supervisor, they just wouldn’t take “4” for an answer. But they finally relented (I am a very stubborn man).Do you think I would tell anyone if or how many firearms I might own?Note: since then I have come up with a better answer for questions like these… perfectly truthful and honest…I simply reply: “I do not have one gun in my home.”

I was working as a Census taker for Statistics Canada during the national census of 1996 when one member of the public made a false complaint against me.To give the necessary background: Each census taker was assigned a different territory. We were each provided a detailed map of our own territory, clearly marking out its boundaries. Every residence within that territory was depicted on the map as a little square or rectangle. And for each street within our territory, it listed the relevant range of house numbers for each side of that street (e.g. one territory might end at numbers 49 and 50 Random Street, the next territory started across the intersection at numbers 51 and 52 Random Street.) If everyone got together in a huge field, they could potentially piece together a cool, giant detailed map of Canada.A big part of our job was physically delivering a census form to every separate lot within our territory with a residence on it. If the map showed a lot with a newly built home as empty, a form still needed to be delivered to that residence, and then we needed to mark the missing residence on the map of our territory. The maps were extremely accurate, and I had to mark maybe one new home on mine.The census was meant to be a snapshot of Canada on a particular day. If someone owned multiple residences, they needed to fill out the form for each property with information for that residence as of census day. So if the entire family stayed in one house on that date, the information for their second house would be that it didn’t have any residents as of census day — there was no need to fill out any of the additional data on that form. If someone’s son spent that date in the spare house? Then the form would reflect that the second home had one resident as of that date, and that son’s data would need to be entered on that form.People didn’t have to fill out the forms on the spot, but could mail it in (at no cost) by the deadline, some date following the “census date”. If they had any questions about filling out the form, I could try to answer their questions while I was at their door, or they could call the help line provided on the form itself.There was a different, and longer, census form for farms. It collected some agricultural data as well as data about the residence and its inhabitants. If someone groaned about having to fill out the longer form, I’d point out that they only needed to provide estimates for most of the extra questions (statistically, if someone slightly overestimated one figure, someone else would balance that out by underestimating). I’d also point out they could probably get all the information they required from their last income tax form. If someone hadn’t kept their income tax form and was concerned about providing any inconsistent data? I told them not to worry, because Revenue Canada is not allowed to see their census form, Stats Can is not allowed to see their income tax form (which is why they don’t just take the data from that), the data is all aggregated and, again, Estimates Are OK.This groaning was far from universal — strangely enough, I had to talk some people who had a hobby garden in their backyards out of trying to claim the longer agricultural form to fill out — but I quickly became used to having some people act reluctant about accepting the longer agricultural form.So, on with the story at hand: During one of my trips I came to one farm with clearly only one entrance to the residence, from a road well within my territory, to a home well within my territory. With agricultural form in hand, I knocked on the door and it was answered by a woman. I explained I was here to drop off a form for the census. She looked at the form then told me she will not fill it out. No explanation. She just said she would not fill it out.This wasn’t entirely unusual or unexpected (although up to that point I faced zero resistance — only, in a couple of cases, some antsy migrant workers hurriedly running off to hide in barns.Some people think they aren’t required to respond to the census and consider it to be the government being too “big brother”. So I politely explained to the woman that all the information she provides will be kept private, and won’t be shared with any other government authorities. I was about to explain there are benefits to the census, e.g., ensuring that the appropriate level of health services, police services, etc, are provided to different areas. But before I could, she again said “There is no requirement for me to fill out the form.”So I read to her from a paper we were provided politely explaining that a census form is required to be filled out by every residence in Canada.Then she says she was already given a form. I asked if someone came up to this property? (Because that would mean another census taker erroneously came into my territory). No.Finally, she explained that she had received special permission from someone in the government to not fill out the agricultural form. Taken aback, I asked her where she got that advice from, and she said she had spoken to someone from the census office, and she was told that she wouldn’t be required to fill out a form for this address because they already had a form for another part of their farm operating out of the neighbouring territory.So, I thought to myself “why the hell didn’t you tell me this to begin with instead of wasting everyone’s time?”, but instead I said to her something like “Okay, I was completely unaware of that. How about I leave a form with you, and you give my supervisor a call at this number. Then if you don’t need to complete the form, just throw it out. He can also let me know if I don’t need to get a form back from you.” She seemed very agreeable to this. So I apologized for taking up her time, and headed off.This was in the days before everyone had mobile phones. So instead of driving home, calling my supervisor, finding my way back to where I had left off (which wasn’t at a convenient intersection), and getting back to the job at hand, I decided to continue going door-to-door and following up the next morning.The next day, before I could call my supervisor, he called me.He was a former highschool principal whom I had the pleasure of working with on other contract jobs with the government (Elections Canada, specifically), so he knew me fairly well. He said to me “Hey, I got a complaint from a woman. Don’t worry about it. I know you, and I think this is completely out of character, but she complained that you were very rude and aggressive. She said you threatened to call in the police and get her fined if she didn’t take a form from you, and other things that strike me as very unlikely.” So I told him my side of the story. He said, “You did the right thing. We verified that part of her farm operation is in the next territory, she’s already received a form for it there, and Stats Can doesn’t need her to fill out a second form. The other operation doesn’t have a separate residence, so she can fill that data in on the one form. I told her she can dispose of the form you left with her, and we’ll follow up on her complaint. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of that. Keep up the good work.”

The laws of the Third Reich do not figure into much of how Americans 'view themselves' and their ancestral roots.German ancestry is one of the largest group. However, most who have ancestry signNowing deep into the distant past, say before the Revolution, while perhaps still carrying a germanic family name, no longer identify with that ethnicity, unless one is one of the more closed social groups of Amish, Menonites or Hutterites (there may be others...)For example, few realize that the popular household equipment name brand, Amana, comes from a 'german speaking' utopian community effort in the 19th Century.The urancestor on my mother's patrilineal side, came to the US... well... the Colonies, in the early 1700s... at least according to my researches... my great grandfather on that side died at Gettysburg... there was little consciousness of 'things german' in my mother's family. Ok, perhaps the fact that the family came to eastern Pennsylvania, and essentially did not relocated for over 230 years, is perhaps a 'german' thing...As for how many US citizens process their recent german ancestry into a dual citizenship, I have no idea. There was a big snafu a few years back about Michele Bachmann claim Swiss Miss citizenship status...Of course there's also the formerly Yiddish speaking Ashkenazim and now dual Israeli/US citizenship.

If anyone reads my content here, they’ll know I talk about this phenomenon of White (and Black) Americans falsely claiming to be “Cherokee” or have some degree of Native Americans ancestry, all the damn time. And yes, it is usually just false family lore. That’s just the blunt facts.However, as much as I discuss this kind of thing in my content (along with VERY detailed information about Warren’s specific claims), I have never seen any evidence that she claimed it in order to qualify for a job. In fact, I see no evidence that it came into the hiring process at all.What I actually see is what might be called a box checker. Meaning, this was part of a demographic or record keeping sort of deal. It’s sort of like the federal Census form or any other personnel information document that is filled out by the individual, applicant or employee. This is simply based on self-identification.In that respect, Warren is no different than the millions of Americans that recycle these unsupported - and usually false - family myths.This is extremely common!However, the only reason this got latched onto is because it is now part of a partisan battle.So, she’s entrenched in her position that this is just “part of my heritage” (and ain’t nobody gonna take that away from her!). It apparently doesn’t require anything other than the recitation of the lore or claim that there is blood back there “somewhere.” No real ancestry or affiliation to a tribe is required. It’s a sort of independent endeavor.And on the other hand, conservative enemies have latched onto a narrative that they like.But, they are also somewhat delusional or self-selecting narratives that suit their personal psychological needs. Bear in mind, many of these folks that latch onto this anti-Warren rhetoric are staunch right-wing partisans. They are the folks that elected Trump, so they actually have no claim to moral principles anyway.One side (Warren) is just engaging in a common White American social quirk (claiming “Cherokee blood”) and isn’t backing down because she’s stubborn (not necessarily a bad trait to have in some cases). And the other (right wingers) is totally insane and latches onto anything that might be seen to discredit a “libtard.” Or, they’ll make a mountain out of a mole hill at the very least, as long as is about someone seen as a political enemy.

Refusing to answer any census question, or intentionally giving a false answer to one, can result in a fine, according to federal law. ... A question about U.S. citizenship has not been included among the census questions for all U.S. households since 1950.

By law, the U.S. government is required to count the number of people living in the United States every 10 years. Getting an accurate count is important because census numbers impact daily life in the United States in many ways. ... On average, it takes no more than 10 minutes to answer the questions on the census.

The Census Bureau likes to stress the positive benefits of participation in the survey, but the proverbial stick does exist. Under Title 13 of the U.S. Code, you can be fined up to $100 for refusing to complete a census form and $500 for answering questions falsely. ... The Census Bureau is not a prosecuting agency.

The census provides the only official head count. ... According to United States Code, Title 13 (Census), Chapter 7 (Offenses and Penalties), SubChapter II, if you're over 18 and refuse to answer all or part of the census, you can be fined up to $100. If you give false answers, you're subject to a fine of up to $500.

The census questionnaire asks for people's names to ensure that each household member is counted only once.