现在2020 census 人口普查表只需国会批准，就是正式的了！
奥巴马政府时期的联邦人口普查局在任期结束前提出了最初的2020年联邦人口普查样表。表格中对亚裔的歧视一目了然。（详情请阅读：2020年联邦人口普查样表的来龙去脉 ）
既然我们知道了
就不可以无视对我们的歧视
对我们孩子
孩子的孩子的歧视！
我们最最有效的反对行动是
给美国国会众议员写信，
需要做的是：
查找本地对应选区议员发邮件。
查找链接
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
这里有个样本大家可以参考
大家为了自己的子子孙孙
不被歧视对待
发封信吧
努力不一定成，但不做一点抗争
肯定不会有改变！！
马里兰州蒙郡
反对人口普查表区别对待亚裔
信件参考样本
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Your Email Address
Date
Dear XXX
Address
Dear XXX,
（Intruduce yourself）, I am writing to express my concern about the race question in the 2020 census. My concern is about the format of the question, instead of the content of the question.
For Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), there are multiple boxes to click. By contrast, for other races and ethnicities such as Black, White, or Native Americans, respondents have with one write-in box for each race-ethnic designation. I believe the extra Asian boxes are harmful to the AAPI community in the following ways:
1. Continuing the legacy of the Chinese/Asian Exclusion Act. The Census first implemented an Asian special race box in 1870. Persons of East and Southeast Asian descent were first all called “Chinese,” irrespective of whether they actually came from Imperial China or not (the word “Chinese” first appeared in 1870 Census). In later censuses, ethnicities based on country of origin such as Japanese(1890), Filipino (1930), and Korean (1930) were created and added, and each new category served a political reason or was used as a tool to practice immigrant exclusion before the civil rights movement in the 1960s. For example, on April 3rd, 2018, Washington Post reported that information from the 1940 Census was secretly used to help sending Japanese Americans to internment camps in WWII (“Secret use of census info helped send Japanese Americans to internment campsin WWII” by Lori Aratani). It is time to end this hurtful legacy and further unify the AAPI community.
2. Casting the smaller AAPI communities as the “other”. The current census question alienates AAPI community members who do not belong to one the largest nine groups. It is a way of implying that some ethnicities are not as important as others.
3. Hindering free self-expression of ethnic and cultural identity. In the current system, White people can write in Russian Jewish, South European, or Middle Eastern if their ancestors have a complex migration history or are from different parts of the world. It is different for the AAPI community — you have to belong to either one box or a combination of boxes. For instance, a person of Chinese and Vietnamese descent probably would consider herself neither Chinese nor Vietnamese, but they are pressured to choose one box. Also, the current system is insensitive to the identity of multiracial persons of Asian heritage. Asian heritage has a special box, while the heritage of other ancestries allows more nuance. Therefore, the Census would fail to include
pertinent information about many AAPI community members.
4. Perpetuating the stereotype of Asian Americans as “forever foreigners.” Asians are considered less American than Black, White, and Native Americans. This census race question again defines us differently from other racial groups, and ignores the nuanced interconnectedness among AAPI communities.
5. Making Asians inferior. The current format implies that without the extra boxes as guidance, Asian people will not know how to answer the question properly. We know some scholars already have expressed concerns that some respondents may click Asian, then skip the print details section. However, this assumption is particularly troubling and racist, because it makes Asians inferior. If people in other racial groups know how to click a box then print, Asians know as well.
Our suggestion is to treat groups equally: One Asian, one box to print. We urge Census Bureau to change the collection of data from persons of Asian origin to be identical to the way that White, Black, Native American data are collected. In 2017, the Census Bureau released an earlier version with the equitable format, and it has been tested and proved to be effective.
However, the final version changed back to the multiple boxes practice. The One Box approach is more culturally sensitive and statistically meaningful. It will not increase the cost to the Census Bureau. It will also reduce the potential confusion.
Sincerely,
Your name
