…and the fact that California and Democrats are arguing otherwise shows how embracing unethical policies leads one down progressively dark and uninviting alleys of dubious law and logic.
The Trump administration announced that the 2020 U.S. census would include a question about citizenship status. I am shocked that it didn’t already. Among the many things a government needs to know about its population, this demographic should be near the top. Yet Democrats have vowed to fight it in the Congress, fight it in the courts, on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, in the hills; and will never surrender.
Well, it doesn’t matter. Democrats are trapped. Oh, some unethical, partisan judge may hold otherwise along the way, but a nation certainly has the right and the duty to determine how many of its occupants are lawful citizens. This is zugswang for Democrats. Since they maintain that being here illegally is no crime, they cannot credibly argue that the census is trying to force self-incrimination. That’s not even their initial argument: they complain that the question will frighten respondents who fear immigration enforcement, so they won’t fill out the form.
“Let’s call this like it is: The census, written about and hallowed in the Constitution, is being distorted by this administration for political purposes. President Trump and (Commerce) Secretary (Wilbur) Ross should be ashamed of themselves,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement. “Hopefully, the courts will correct this glaring abuse.”
What abuse? The fact that the Democrats have built their recruitment efforts on encouraging and enabling illegal immigration is their own abuse, and their own problem These are some very sick and ugly chickens coming home to roost. See, real citizens and those who have the right to live here aren’t afraid of answering that question. And while Congress represents everyone in a Congressional district, legal or not, those violating the law to be represented are cheating. They undermine our democracy. The progressive panic over a census question that is valid and important demonstrates how cynical and indefensible the Democratic Party’s position is. Zugswang. Trapped.
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called the decision a “direct attack on our representative democracy.” Holder’s legal acumen hasn’t gotten any better since he left office. Representative democracy doesn’t exist to let anyone just waltz across the border, hide out, falsify papers, and take benefits from those who belong here. It is the practice of swelling Congressional districts by importing non-citizens to distort the will of citizen majorities that is a “direct attack on our representative democracy.” Democrats have just been reaping the benefits of that attack. Anyway, the Census isn’t stopping illegal immigrants from being counted. Democrats fear that the illegal immigrants will stop themselves from being counted. In fact, they can’t be deported or arrested for what they put on a census form: their fear is based on ignorance, which tends to happen when one lives here in the shadows, Well, a public education effort is mandated then! By all means, the U.S. should put out multi-language ads, brochures and announcements explaining that census data is private and secure. Nevertheless, the government needs the data, and has every right to ask the question.
In 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congressional district counts couldn’t be restricted to citizens eligible to vote. I would not bet on the Court similarly ruling that the country can’t inquire how many residents are eligible to vote. It is a perfectly fair and reasonable question that is only threatening to those who shouldn’t be in a position to be counted anyway.
24 thoughts on “Of Course It Is Completely Fair, Responsible And Ethical For The Census To Ask For Citizenship Status…”
Prosecutor pull-start here in NJ has announced that NJ will join the lawsuit. Gotta shield those illegals.
1) Illegal immigrants only have to lie to the census man, I’m not sure the census man has any ability to compel checking up on answers.
2) Censuses…censi?…censae?…censorumae? ALWAYS are modified to include questions that shed light on key contemporary political concerns. Illegal immigration is s current political concern.
Democrats should wholeheartedly welcome this question if they believe illegal immigration isn’t a problem, this census question will help prove their claim. What are they worried about?
3) Could California be worried that a population count inflated by illegals my give pause to wondering if California has a similarly inflated representation in in the House and in Electoral votes? Would something like that worry California Democrats? Should something like that worry anyone who genuinely cares about our Constitutional Republic?
Just count illegals as 3/5 of a person for Congressional Districts.
Well, we do need to be consistent about these things.
Can we just cut the BS and open voting polls in foreign countries, so future illegal aliens can get a head start voting in US elections? We can use a modified “one drop rule”. Any person that has any faint relation to a US person or illegal alien inside the US can vote in any federal election at the US embassy in their country. Also, it will not be required to present proof of relation to the to mentioned categories of people.
Hah. Aleksei, unfortunately, you’re way behind the curve. Everyone outside the US thinks they have a say in American electoral politics, certainly presidential elections. It’s hilarious.
I’ve been living legally in the US since the early 2000s and filled the census form in 2010. My wife and I were baffled that it did not ask about our citizenship or immigration status, so we went online to check if we actually had to fill the form. Turns out the answer was yes, and we thus concluded that missing that question would make the data much less valuable than it should be.
Anyone know why that’s not already on the census?
Apparently the question was on the Census surveys right up to 1950, and then removed. I’m trying to find out why.
It’s the most insidious communist plot to date.
(Right after fluoridation)
Apparently Rusty found it on the 2000 census…his link below.
I don’t have problems with this either. I assume the actual fear is one of accuracy in the data. For e.g., if you are in a state with high illegal immigration (like CA), you want the numbers to be as accurate as possible. It informs many decisions — like school boundaries, number of teachers to hire, etc. If you have people actively hiding from census takers, that’s bad news. I guess we can assume that people will just lie, but in my experience illegals tend to hide from government officials.
Article 1 section two of the Constitution explains why we have a decenial census. It is to apportion the number of representatived in the House. No one on TV has made that statement.
The American Community Survey, also administered by the Commerce Department annually does have a question related to citizenship but no one is objecting to the ACS.
The only reasonable conclusion that such a question on the decenial census is being fought against is that the undocumented can increase an areas population that will increase the number of representatives in the House and, in today’s world, increase federal funding.
We cannot argue that those added representatives truely reprepresent the undocumented because such persons are ineligible to vote. However, they are assumed to have de facto representation by virtue of the fact that are part of the larger community.
But, this creates a significant distortion in our electoral process. In fact, it is no different than a foreign power influencing our elections. If a state has a significant undocumented population then it has foreign citizens influencing our electoral maps. In states with few if any undocumented persons their citizenry are mathematically diluted in representation.
I understand a SCOTUS ruling that voter eligibilty should not condition representation as persons with certain legal status and those under the age of majotity and citizens are ineligible, but I cannot understand the rationale that undocumented persons have a right to political representation. We do not count foreign hotel guests or those here working as embassy personnel in the census so why should we treat citizens of foreign nations that are here without permission as residents worthy of political representation?
The decenial census that does not accurately reflect the population with a legal stake in our political processes through which we determine the total number of representatives and the number of electors in the Electoral College is contrary to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution.
What if it turns out that the numbers are SO bad that it’s apparent California has been abetting this entire scheme to its own benefit…
are there processes in our system by which the federal government can punish particular states?
“…but I cannot understand the rationale that undocumented persons have a right to political representation.”
Yes you can. It is power. That is why California is trying to let illegal aliens vote. Illegal aliens already have state ID’s and get state-subsidized car insurance, housing…. It is all about power. The Democratic Party cannot remain in power without bribing people to vote for them. If the people who have to pay the bills were in charge, the Democratic Party would not be.
I’m just gonna leave this here:
Click to access d02p.pdf
If you look at question 13, I think you might find the hypocrisy here. Remember, this was back in the Clinton (42) days.
Hm…so the question was removed for 2010 or was it present for 2010 and the Dems are only trying make hay over something that’s a non-issue?
(also, you don’t need to add a number to the Clinton presidency. We’ve only had one president named Clinton)
I don’t see it on the 2010 form.
In Canada, we have two versions of the census… Long form and short form, the short form census is basically just people-counting, the longer form is scattered in an even distribution among about a fifth of census takers, and it’s much more in depth… I got the long form last time. I’m wondering if America has something similar and maybe the short form didn’t ask where the long form did?
Regardless! Funny story: Damn near the first question for each person was (and has always been) a version of “is this person a legal citizen of Canada?”.
Yes, we have that here. 2010 was a short form only census, but there was also the American Community Survey, which oddly enough, has the same question (page 8)
Click to access quest10.pdf
Funny, progressives have been encouraging illegals to vote, making it easy for them to do so… yet claim none have ever voted?
Also funny how counties with large proportions of illegals went to Hillary, sometimes with more votes than were registered voters…
This comes back to money, and places that allow illegal to vote dilute representation and remuneration for places that are diligent to protect the integrity of the voter registration process.
And that is a feature, not a bug.