Census workers can enter your apartment in your absence

[Guest gts]

SOURCE via Drudge Report

The Barr Code

Census workers can enter your apartment in your absence

6:00 am May 26, 2010, by Bob Barr

Thousands of census workers, including many temporary employees, are fanning out across America to gather information on the citizenry. This is a process that takes place not only every decade in order to complete the constitutionally-mandated census; but also as part of the continuing “American Community Survey†conducted by the Census Bureau on a regular basis year in and year out.

What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.†If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.

That’s right — not only can citizens be fined if they fail to answer the increasingly intrusive questions asked of them by the federal government under the guise of simply counting the number of people in the country; but a landlord must give them access to your apartment whether you’re there or not, in order to gather whatever “statistics†the law permits.

In fact, some census workers apparently are going even further and demanding — and receiving — private cell phone numbers from landlords in order to call tenants and obtain information from them. Isn’t it great to live in a “free†country?

There are too many bad ramifications to this to bother listing. Most notable to me will be the guy who goes to prison for killing a government worker that was entering his home uninvited, unannounced, unwelcome and presume to be an intruder. Edited May 28, 2010 by gts

[Mike.357]

still waiting to hear if the couple of answers I gave were sufficient. Haven't heard any of it yet. My guess is naming the occupants and calling ourselves human was good enough.

If one of them came into my rented abode and I came home to find them in there they might find themselves with an extra hole or two. Thats crazy stuff..

Edited May 28, 2010 by Mike.357

[gnmwilliams]

Here is the actual wording of the code...

TITLE 13 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 223

Prev | Next

§ 223. Refusal, by owners, proprietors, etc., to assist census employees

Whoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house, tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary or by any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, acting under the instructions of the Secretary, to furnish the names of the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress thereto and egress therefrom to any duly accredited representative of such Department or bureau or agency thereof, so as to permit the collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.

- Ingress to what is my question. Records? Dwelling? Ingress to dwelling isn't specifically stated but the wording is right on the fence. Sounds fishy if you ask me.

Edited May 28, 2010 by gnmwilliams

[LagerHead]

SOURCE via Drudge Report

There are too many bad ramifications to this to bother listing. Most notable to me will be the guy who goes to prison for killing a government worker that was entering his home uninvited, unannounced, unwelcome and presume to be an intruder.

That should be the Webster's Dictionary definition of the government.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

A lot of the questions gripe me, especially the long form I didn't have to fill out. I'd probably have paid a fine rather than fill out the long form, just on principle.

The Names and Race questions I don't even like, but census has been recording those a LONG time, and might have uses in the far future.

Last 10 years of mom's life she was real interested in genealogy. Our ancestors would apparently start a new homestead about once per generation. A group of related families that would 'move down the line' lock stock and barrel to virgin land, over several generations.

Mom could trace the path down the east coast then west, via names on old census records. The names stay supposedly confidential for some years, and then are public-viewable.

If the ancestors had refused to give names, then mom wouldn't have had such good evidence she enjoyed.

[Guest gts]

still waiting to here if the couple of answer I gave were sufficient. Haven't heard any of it yet. My guess is naming the occupants and calling ourselves human was good enough.

If one of them came into my rented abode and I came home to find them in there they might find themselves with an extra hole or two. Thats crazy stuff..

Exerting my 5th Amendment right, I will not divulge how I avoided the current census altogether. However, a relative of mine was recently visited by a census worker and shared on the number of occupants. He informed the worker that the constitution requires only the enumeration of the people, not the names, ages, or anything else.

You will probably not know how insufficient your answers were until you receive your IRS audit in a couple of years.

[mikegideon]

Here is the actual wording of the code...

TITLE 13 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 223

Prev | Next

§ 223. Refusal, by owners, proprietors, etc., to assist census employees

Whoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house, tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary or by any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, acting under the instructions of the Secretary, to furnish the names of the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress thereto and egress therefrom to any duly accredited representative of such Department or bureau or agency thereof, so as to permit the collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.

- Ingress to what is my question. Records? Dwelling? Ingress to dwelling isn't specifically stated but the wording is right on the fence. Sounds fishy if you ask me.

Ingress to the property maybe, like apartment buidings... so they can knock on doors? We're gonna run out of tin foil one of these days.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

My fiance is currently doing the census thing. Has been employed as an enumerator for several weeks now, with several more weeks to go. They are NOT allowed to enter someone's dwelling, and are even trained and strongly reminded that they are not to do so. Anytime someone invites them in to do the survey, she has to politely inform them that they're not allowed to do so and must conduct the interview at the door / porch.

I believe this "law" is in place for multi-tennant dwellings... such as large apartment complexes where the door to the outer streets may require a key / buzzed in. In that case, they need access to the inner halls so they can go door to door. That still does NOT entitle them to demand entry into the private dwellings... nor are they allowed to do so. They have very strict rules on what they can and can't do.

[strickj]

I've been visited twice by a CW and I currently am renting a house.

Both times I have been "on my way out" and was unalbe to complete their servery.

Today, they contacted my dad (whom I am renting from).

He gave her my count, and that was the end of it.

My fiance is currently doing the census thing. Has been employed as an enumerator for several weeks now, with several more weeks to go. They are NOT allowed to enter someone's dwelling, and are even trained and strongly reminded that they are not to do so. Anytime someone invites them in to do the survey, she has to politely inform them that they're not allowed to do so and must conduct the interview at the door / porch.

I believe this "law" is in place for multi-tennant dwellings... such as large apartment complexes where the door to the outer streets may require a key / buzzed in. In that case, they need access to the inner halls so they can go door to door. That still does NOT entitle them to demand entry into the private dwellings... nor are they allowed to do so. They have very strict rules on what they can and can't do.

You apparently are not wearing your tin foil.

My advise is to start wearing it now, at this very instance, before your brain receives more Gov control waves

[Guest gts]

My fiance is currently doing the census thing. Has been employed as an enumerator for several weeks now, with several more weeks to go. They are NOT allowed to enter someone's dwelling, and are even trained and strongly reminded that they are not to do so. Anytime someone invites them in to do the survey, she has to politely inform them that they're not allowed to do so and must conduct the interview at the door / porch.

I believe this "law" is in place for multi-tennant dwellings... such as large apartment complexes where the door to the outer streets may require a key / buzzed in. In that case, they need access to the inner halls so they can go door to door. That still does NOT entitle them to demand entry into the private dwellings... nor are they allowed to do so. They have very strict rules on what they can and can't do.

I am going to write Mr. Barr (this guy was the libertarian candidate for Prez in 08) and ask for further clarification and documentation. Will post update when, and if, I receive a response. I will be very surprised to see if he has exaggerated this and it got posted on drudge.

[mikegideon]

I've been visited twice by a CW and I currently am renting a house.

Both times I have been "on my way out" and was unalbe to complete their servery.

Today, they contacted my dad (whom I am renting from).

He gave her my count, and that was the end of it.

You apparently are not wearing your tin foil.

My advise is to start wearing it now, at this very instance, before your brain receives more Gov control waves

Those waves made me flinch a couple of times today... messed up a couple of groups. Damn you Obama

[kb4ns]

We're gonna run out of tin foil one of these days.

[Guest BEARMAN]

Man, those CW must have an extra LARGE set of cojones, to try and pull that stunt off...well, at least the male CW's.

[Steelharp]

I am going to write Mr. Barr (this guy was the libertarian candidate for Prez in 08) and ask for further clarification and documentation. Will post update when, and if, I receive a response. I will be very surprised to see if he has exaggerated this and it got posted on drudge.

There is no further clarification needed. VK is right. Period. We are not allowed to enter a residence.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

Notice how the MISSING question on the mail-in form is "Are you a US Citizen"?

[Steelharp]

Notice how the MISSING question on the mail-in form is "Are you a US Citizen"?

I don't believe that's ever been on there.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

I don't believe that's ever been on there.

Prolly not, but I believe it should be. Prolly no law saying it should, but IMHO it would be more just.