All four of my grandparents were immigrants. I know that my Italian grandparents did not become U. S. Citizens. I am not sure about my Czech grandparents. I do know that my Italian grandfather was blown up in an unsafe coal mine before he had the chance to become a citizen. Immigrants, regardless of whether they are citizens or not, contribute greatly to the development of this country. My uncle who studied very hard and became was a machinist very young, was born in this country and, thus, was a citizen, was also blown up in the coal mine disaster. My grandmother raised her two remaining children alone by sewing (she was an accomplished seamstress), cooking for others, and writing letters for people to send back to their families in Italy. People living in the USA need to be counted for the U. S. Census, first of all because it is in the Constitution, but also for hundreds of other reasons: infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, etc), energy needs, housing, schools, retail business, investment business, banks, libraries, medical planning, etc. People are people and they contribute to our society in countless ways. To be a civil society we need to provide a civic unity which supports their endeavors. We cannot grow as a country or as community if we do not.
7
When the democrats get back in power, let’s defund two supreme courts seats. Why? “We need to streamline and cut costs so why not start at the top?” See? I can play the power-tipping game too!
Immediately dump Gorsuch and his plus one.
4
The census feeds data into more than redistricting (see census.gov). To design it for just one of those purposes would almost certainly suboptimize it for its other uses.
There is a larger system involved in our election process that needs a broader redesign to account for how time and changes in size and scale impact the effectiveness of government.
Trying to optimize for only one aspect at a time will keep everyone busy (and distracted), but will not produce a durable successful outcome.
Seeing the history of how the "party in power" has a pattern of failing an integrity test, instead serving itself, this also cannot be solved successfully through a typical legislative process. Same for redistricting.
We need something more in the nature of a constitutional convention that is non-partisan, or at least bi-partisan, preceded by quite a bit of education by the public at large.
We need consider policies such as how to have all qualified citizens voting all the time (age criteria is reasonable, but few other filters are), private money removed (being rich or beholden should not be a speech amplifier), redistricting through non-partisan mechanisms, balance term limits and need for experienced legislators...
Or we could continue as we are. How is that working for you (and your children)?
2
The question has been asked in past census counts and I believe only citizens should be counted since the census determines how many House members each state will have and they are supposed to represent citizens ONLY!!
3
@Beth Grant DeRoos the census is not intended to count voters. it is intended for the government and that includes state and city governments to know how many people are living in their jurisdiction. This is to assist in making infrastructure, service, protection, education, housing, water, air, land decisions. If we don't know how many people are actually within city limits, for instance, we are not going to make the best plans for all of the people living within said city.
4
Why should non-citizens be counted? They can't vote, and should not have representation. I think the question is fair and should be asked.
3
@Bubo
Why should non citizens be counted? I am totally shocked that anyone needs to ask: I could go on for hours but let’s start with planning for civil infrastructure- transit, water treatment, the power grid, schools, health care —- all of these will need to grow or be maintained at rates that will be a function of numbers of people NOT numbers of citizens.
4
If you care about this issue, PLEASE send your comments to the federal government via this link by August 7 (when it closes): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/08/2018-12365/proposed...
See point "a" in the "request for comments" section at the very end.
There is no reason for this. None. The composition of the United States has always, ALWAYS included a mixture of citizens, naturalized and native, and non-citizens. The progression towards cataloging residents in this way does nothing but destroy the truth of our past as a constantly evolving and expanding country and make our present and future even further divided along lines most commonly reinforced with bigotry and class oppression.
6
Counting illegal immigrants and non-citizens for the purpose of providing them with representation in Congress is the very definition of allowing foreign nationals to meddle in American affairs.
8
@Mary Pretty sure the information collect f in your census ( like those in most advanced countries) is used for many many purposes beyond giving political representation to non-citizens!
3
Isn't representation required for all residents with income and business taxes, regardless of their citizenship or age? The electoral rules are to avoid influence from illegitimate voters (age, citizenship, some status) to protect integrity of who is elected, but not to determine how many are being represented by that elected person. Otherwise what about representing children's needs?
Once more, as an outsider, I get the impression that, in America, the lunatics are running the asylum. By definition, non-citizens are not able to vote, so why would you even count them when planning electorates? Here in Australia, electorates are based, not on census details, but on the up-to-date electoral rolls - and everybody applies to join the roll when he comes of age or, if a migrant, is naturalised. It's simple and straightforward.
Also, your author reveals a bias by calling illegal immigrants "undocumented" ones.
7
@Malcolm
You also have mandatory voting. So that's easier.
But think of states that house large populations of retired people. Should they have more represented than those with more children? That would be bad. Tell you why. My county is largely retired people. The school system was short about a million dollars on it's budget. So they put up a referendum on raising property taxes a bit to cover it, and it got voted down. These old people already raised their kids in whatever other state they were from.They didn't care about the children in their community. Representation based on population and the area's needs.
No taxation w/o representation was a battle cry during the revolution. Even though many people don't pay federal income tax, there are a myriad of other federal taxes that we all pay. Gas, tobacco, alcohol, and on and on.
5
@rick386 You are mixing apples and oranges. Retired citizens can vote, if they choose to. Nom-citizens should not vote and should not be counted for representation.
corporations may be people, but cornstalks are not.
Giant, underpopulated states already have out sized influence due to the Senate, which is the upper house of congress.
Are we a democracy or not?
Constitutionally, non voting citizens such as slaves were counted as population, 3/5th of which, but still. Imagine a southern state in 1781, with plantations composed of 1 family, maybe 15-20 voting people with 2-3 hundred slaves counting as 150 ppl. So 20 people have the representative power of 170. The framers gave a lot to the slave and small states to ensure that they would join the union. A constitutional originalist has no business arguing that we don't count non citizens, be they here legally or not. People are people, and should be counted.
Politically, do the cons wanna see Texas lose power?
4
The census has always counted non-citizens for the simple reason that it has always counted women, who did not get the vote throughout the US until after World War I. The men meeting in Philadelphia in 1787 - many of them well studied in political philosophy, history (especially Classical history), and in the practical governance of the European polities of their time - understood the difference between inhabitants and citizens: if they had wanted only to count the latter, they would have said so. Madison's notes show that the delegates much discussed the ideas of "citizenship and inhabitancy" [Aug 13th]. Madison himself stated that "America was indebted to emigrations for
her settlement & Prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture & the arts." The initial motion [June 11th] about what we call the House moved that "the mode of representation of each of the States ought to be from the number of its free inhabitants" [adding the 3/5ths provision for those "of every other description"]. This motion passed 9-2. Both the Constitution and the debates about it make it obvious: the census counts INHABITANTS and the House is to be apportioned on the basis of that head count.
4
@J Collins I like your argument. The 3/5ths compromise was inacted so the south and slave owners wouldn't have to much power. Seems with this, they're trying to do the same thing with the cities.
1
Why 435? By artificially capping the House size, we have created a zero sum game. Increase the size of the House!
The autopilot 435 also prevents new Congress from debating the question and the president from deciding whether to use a veto as Washington did (perhaps the first veto).
1
Citizens are people who vote. Illegal immigrants are people who can't vote, but participate in government by paying taxes that subsidize citizens and legal immigrants. Taxation without representation is tyranny, so it seems that to deny citizens that form of representation that is represented by the census is a form of tyranny. Since many felons are denied the right to vote, this is also the only form of representation those "free persons" are entitled to by the Constitution.
1
You need a non political regulatory body to make these decisions!
I’ll trade the citizen question for giving representation to citizens from the District of Colombia.
When will articles like this say up front what we all know already? Republicans cannot win popular elections. The more they can do to gerrymander, suppress votes, and yes, even solicit help from their pal Putin, the greater the likelihood they can grab power from other Americans. Their lack of shame is unparalleled in our history.
6
There really shouldn't be a question of constitutionality here. The law as originally written only counted citizens. There was no such thing as illegal immigrants at the time, much less 30+ million of them. Only citizens should be counted for representational purposes. Our Constitution doesn't provide for representation of citizens of other countries nor should it. For those saying the larger cities need more representation, sorry, but we don't have a democracy. We have a republic and should govern accordingly, state by state. No city or state should be able to rely on raw population numbers that don't differentiate between American citizens and foreign citizens. Allowing representation for non citizens allows other countries to influence our elections and law.
6
@Johnny What do you mean by "The law as originally written?" The "original" law is the Constitution of the United States, and this is what it says:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
The section about counting "the whole Number of free Persons" and 3/5 of "all other Persons" was a reference to slavery, and was changed by the 14th Amendment.
Now, of course, slavery is gone, so everybody here is a "free person" and is supposed to be counted.
So basically, it's the opposite of what you say: the Constitution wants everyone to be counted in the census, and says nothing at all about citizens and noncitizens. Also, the last line in the quote above says that Congress can make laws changing the MANNER of counting, but not who GETS counted. If you want to change that, you'll need a Constitutional Amendment.
13
@Chris NYC as originally written the Constitution provided for citizens. The immigrants that came through Ellis Island were given citizenship and counted. The problem of people flooding across the border unaccounted for didn't exist. I`m not claiming any issue with the 14th Amendment or anything else. Slavery was abolished and POC were rightfully counted. Even the Mexicans that wanted to stay here when we bought most of the southwest from Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were given the choice of staying in their homes as citizens of the United States with full rights or returning to Mexico, but not both. That would imply a sense of our founders recognizing citizenship. Again, like I mentioned earlier, the problem of 30+ million people without citizenship didn't exist. Should we call in a few million citizens of other countries at census time to allocate representation to states wanting more representatives?
@Johnny Originally, slaves could not vote and were not counted as citizens. Neither were women. So what exactly are you proposing? Wholesale disenfranchisement of people who were not originally voting citizens?
Taking constitutional "originalism" too far, aren't you?
3
Why don't we just not answer the question? Run advertising and billboards telling people not to answer the question on the census. Why isn't that a more immediate answer than suing to get the question off the census?
6
The facts and opinions raised in this article further emphasize the need for a comprehensive immigration law. Such a law will never happen until the children serving in Congress learn to play nice and compromise. I think the Border Wall is a big fat boondoggle, but would support it as part of an immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship for those qualified under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It's called log rolling. Even the Wall Street Journal thought that such a compromise would be a good idea. Congress, what are you waiting for?
4
Republicans in Congress have no intention of fixing immigration because it is such a lightening rod for getting votes. If they fix it how will they motivate their base to vote?
6
@Deirdre
you cannot 'fix' immigration. The world is ever changing and no fix can account for changes in geopolitics.
Did we round up and send back the ?millions of Irish that came here during the famine?
Looking back, it's still a black mark and shame upon this country for turning back a shipload or two of Jews fleeing the Nazis. Many of whom were executed. Who do we wanna be?
There's gonna be a lot of climate refugees. will we turn blind eye to mass starvations and genocides that will result? Are we not a Christian country, under God?
1
It does seem logical that both total population and the number of US Citizens should be counted no? We do need an accurate accounting of the total population however, I do believe it is relatively uncontroversial to say that undocumented/illegal immigrants should not contribute to certain states gaining additional electoral college votes or Congressional seats.
4
@Dave
Ok, but there is a difference between undocumented and non citizen.
Lotsa people have green cards.
3
@ Phil If all or most illegal immigrants are deported, how much do you think you will have to pay a us citizen or legal immigrant to clean your house? The same you pay an illegal immigrant now or more ? Is it a “lie” to say you will pay more?
I said nothing about wage stagnation in our economy as a whole. That has many complex reasons including jobs moving out of this country. US can get the foreign workers it needs for the economy legally. There is no justification for supporting illegal immigration.
1
@Citizen
Trump's hotels can get the necessary visas to bring in workers, So can some other powerful businesses. Everyone else, not so much. You have to prove that you cannot hire the labor needed before you can get permission.
Side note
"Congressional seats and state legislative districts should equally represent citizens or eligible voters, they say, not everyone."
In Florida, 10% of the adult population has a felony conviction, which makes them ineligible to vote.
Do they lose 10% of their seats in congress?
1
If Republicans want to play with the Congressional seats in the U.S., they should acknowledge that a number of rural states, such as Wyoming, do not have enough population to justify their representation by 2 Senate seats.
4
@Anima
And an equal number of liberal leaning states (Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island) do not as well.
4
@Dave
Delaware has more people than Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and south Dakota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_pop...
Many more smaller, pop wise, red states than blue.
The states you listed, were original states. The ones that fought for independence, if that matters.
The only possible reason to object to the Census asking about immigration status, is that LIBERALS want massive unchecked illegal immigration and open borders.
The lefty libs want to keep the staggering numbers of illegals "unknown" so they can downplay how horrific the problem is.
The 2010 Census INTENTIONALLY grossly undercounted illegals, and those artificially low, distorted numbers are CONSTANTLY references even today 8 years later!
COUNT the illegals, yes. So we can deport them.
11
@Concerned Citizen You know not everyone who isn't a citizen is illegal.
3
Okay, Trump administration:
Define "citizen".
3
The GOP has spent years planning for taking over all branches of Federal & State Governments. Voting suppression & taking power from the most populous states helps their candidates. Along with the help of the KGB.
4
I am all for the changes. Illegal aliens should not be included in the counts. They shouldn't even be here. However, I do agree that some legitimate non-citizens should be represented.
9
Yes - of course the liberals get 'all constitutional' when talking about illegals' rights as 'people' versus 'citizens'. Perhaps we should all follow the laws of our nation, first and foremost: Remove all of those here illegally, and go from there. Once accomplished, I suspect that question on the census form won't be such an issue anymore.
10
We have no problem as a nation to allow non-citizens to fight our wars and die for this country. And, becasue of that, they deserve to be counted in our census.
13
Non-citizens, regardless of whether they are permanent residents, international students, or undocumented immigrants, are constituents of these respresentatives.
They already can't vote. To discount their numbers in representative proportioning would be a spit in the face to the American founders' struggle against "taxation without representation."
14
@YLee4...now I understand why the American founders included the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. They didn't want slaves to be subjected to "taxation without representation".
Clearly, Republicans have it in for California. They can't stand the idea that a politically progressive state supports one of the world's biggest economies, which is growing largely without subsidies for outmoded, environmentally unfriendly technologies. There is no way the biases that keep California underrepresented in the Congress and underfunded by the federal government will do anything but worsen in the foreseeable future. Little wonder why some are considering conversion of the California Republic to an independent state.
7
California is already underrepresented. Take Los Angeles County for example: It has a population of roughly 10 million. It’s population is greater than 43 states of America. At least California has representation in Congress. But it’s lack of representation in the Senate is fair the under the system of two governing houses, the Senate and the Congress. Culling the voters in big cities will only mean that the people of the United States will be ruled by the minority which is not democracy.
12
Noncitizens pay taxes. So this amounts to taxation without representation. I seem to remember that being an important issue sometime in our history...
16
If the red states want to get vocal over congressional districts maybe the blue states should get vocal over the two senators per state. After all if we are letting the Republicans rewrite those parts of the constitution that they disagree with maybe we should do the same. The GOP controlled legislative branch has already laid waist to the checks and balance of the Presidency, the treasury and the judiciary... What’s left?
7
This country could not function without illegals working for big corporations slaughtering chickens, pigs, turkeys, and cows. In GOP Naples they mow the lawns, clean the houses, put on new roofs, bus tables, wash dishes, clean the restaurants at night, They work in Nursing Homes. They work in the hospitality industry cleaning rooms and washing bathrooms. In cities and towns where us citizens with a HS education or higher are gainfully employed they fill the jobs that nobody wants. When is corporate America going to demand a solution to the immigration problem.
4
@Sailorgirl, the old overused cliché about "illegals only take the jobs Americans don't want" is so ridiculous. You pointed out a perfect example, about putting on new roofs. You don't seriously believe no U.S. citizens want those jobs? Especially if the wages had not been driven down by illegals. I have 3 brothers who are in construction, and they can no longer compete in a trade they love, against illegals who live 14 in a 2 bedroom apartment, and work for cash, (thereby NOT paying taxes).
8
US citizens could do all the work needed for a vibrant economy before the illegals started pouring in. They can do it if they all left. US can get all the immigrants it needs for its economy legally.
4
How is this an immigration problem? Those companies choose to hire labor at lesser cost. Immigrants did not force your friends out of jobs and supplant themselves in their place, the labor choices of their employer did.
3
Interesting legal analysis by attorney Danny Cevallos of NBC News:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/are-you-citizen-here-s-what...
If the citizenship question is asked, it might justly be a cause for civil disobedience.
3
Any proposal for apportionment of seats in Congress based on the voting age of citizens is discriminatory against children and their rights. This has consequences for policies and funding for education and health care. It's contrary to principles of Western democracy.
4
The best way to handle this is that everyone ignore the census form.
5
Not sure how accurate the whole census enterprise is anyway. I never received a form in 2010, even after I called them and asked for one.
6
I hear you. If my own experiences are any indication, the census often misses people "hiding" in plain sight. In the past 48 years, I've been counted exactly ONCE: 1990. You read that correctly. This despite absolutely no attempt to avoid or ignore the darned thing. In fact, despite being wholly ignored by the census I've called, even written letters - all for naught. To be certain, polite people always answer and respond, but no form is ever forthcoming in the mail; no census-taker arrives for a visit. As a routinely ignored citizen in the census, I've given up on the affair. There's only so much a tax-payer can do.
3
@Just Curious
Is the census accurate? Or who checks the answers for accuracy? But it does allow for an entire industry since the majority population is overlooked by not really counting votes and djstributions due to political whims
If this question becomes part of the census, my plan is to skip it. I will answer all other questions about the members of my household. We shall be counted as persons, as the Constitution demands. At the same time, we shall stay true to our moral convictions.
My question to the commentariat is: does anyone know what the consequences might be? I am perfectly willing to pay a monetary fine, assuming it's of the order of $1000. Is this all that could befall me? Would the census workers harass me by coming to my home multiple times if my mailed form does not contain the answer this one question?
Note that it would be completely, outrageously invalid for the census data analysts to classify a non-answer as anything but a non-answer. In other words, if someone were to decide that a non-answer means that a person is not a citizen (e.g. scared to answer), or, alternatively, that they are a citizen (e.g. feeling protected enough by citizenship to express protest), anyone with science background would understand that the data are junk.
6
Illegal immigrants have been used as human shields by politicals for some time. Citizenship is an important question for the census.
I would also remove all questions regarding gender, race and age, beyond adult/minor distinction. Other bureaus and departments collect those data. Gerrymandering would require conspicuousness to exist.
This would be a laudable top down approach to removing institutional discrimination. The Census has been a mechanism by which agencies and their overlords have been perpetuating this unconscionable behavior for too long.
5
There is a simple solution - if this question is indeed added to the 2020 census then insist on the paper version of the census. You will be pushed to complete the 2020 census online and will be forced to answer if you complete it online (eg the online form will insist that you check a box before moving forward). So insist on a paper census form and refuse to answer this question.
2
You can always choose not to be counted and have no representation in Congress. Way to go Democrats!
2
@Citizen Your representation in Congress is currently based on how much money you donate to said representatives. I'm not sure failure to tick a box on a census questionnaire would appreciably change that, are you?
As long as the Constitution allots all states two senators regardless of population, and awards two additional electoral votes to each state on that basis, all this census gamesmanship by the Republicans, while consequential, is still a second-order distortion of democracy. The reality is that at the Federal level the U.S. is not a democracy, not even close to one. One person does not equal one vote in the Senate or the Presidency. The minority political party controls both, because of the geographic rules by which the Consitution apportions voting strength. In theory there is one person-one vote in the House, but it is vitiated by gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, per se, however, is not a structural element in the Constitution; it is a pernicious practice. The other two elements are structural. Gaming the census exacerbates that effect but fundamentally, if the Constitution were fair by today's standards, not the standards of 1787, gaming the census in favor of the Republicans would still not leave the Republicans in charge. As it is, gaming the census is an insurance policy to further tighten their already anti-democratic hold on power.
12
"A citizenship question on the 2020 census has already drawn challenges from states that fear an undercount of immigrants and a loss of federal funds."
Correction. A citizenship question on the 2020 census has already drawn challenges from states that fear an undercount of illegal aliens and a loss of federal funds. Happy we're clear on that. Just like abortion isn't healthcare, gun control gun safety, strictly semi-automatic firearms machine guns/weapons of war, so-called transgenders the opposite of their biological sex, neither are illegal aliens immigrants. If you're going to continue referring to them as such, at least put the word illegal in front. Failing to do so is fake news.
In regards to pro-illegal alien states of course they fear an undercount. They couldn't care less about the voting power and federal dollars received being diluted for actual citizens due to counting those who're unlawfully in the country and belong deported. I highly doubt there is another country on the planet who allows such idiocy. When the constitution was written the country had few, if any, laws restricting illegal immigration. Without that there are few, if any illegal aliens to be counted. Today there are 11-20 million of them. The constitution should be interpreted to reflect that and not consider an illegal alien a person. Failing to do so legitimizes their presence, rewards lawbreaking, incentivizes states who benefit to protect them and undermines our constitutional republic.
12
Humans can’t be illegal.
1
@74Patriot1776 Here we have a comment that perfectly channels the cruelty, mean-spiritedness and ignorance of the Trump voter. "Illegal aliens" aren't people, so we shouldn't count them and states and federal government don't need to take care of them. Sure, when they come to the ER, demand their papers and if not right throw them out in the street. And turn their children away from schools. Despicable.
2
@74Patriot1776 What's your source for the "11-20 million" number? Few sources that aren't propaganda oriented put the number higher than 11 million.
Considering people who are here illegally criminals is an arguable point (though not much of one, in my opinion). Considering them non-persons is not. That's an ugly, unhealthy, inhumane, un-American restatement of the long ago denounced Dred Scott decision.
6
What we've got going right now is representation WITHOUT taxation.
8
If we stop asking people if they are citizens why should we stop there? Lets stop asking what sex or race or place of of origin the person is. Those questions are very divisive. Lets stop asking about income or the size of ones house, of if the house is owned or rented, will that not spark class resentment?
Don't ask about education levels, Will that not hurt some people's feeling and make them not want to answer the survey.
Why not forget the whole thing?
10
@Rob We stopped asking people whether they are citizens on census forms almost 70 years ago.
2
So our government should strictly limit its governance to only registered voters? Why not get real specific and say or institute laws that restrict or, using kinder and gentler terms, the service of the government to only those who actually vote? Because we surely know, after extensive checking and weeding out all those 3 million illegal voters who voted this last election, that there is massive voter fraud infiltrating our democratic voting system.
Over the past ten years, we have increasingly become a nation that caters to or tend to the needs of those who fit into a small, circumsized demographic, not unlike what the Founding Fathers envisioned and wanted when they wrote the Constitution, that only white men with property be allowed to vote or be in government positions.
Empires like ours rarely crumble because of forces outside its borders, but from the hidden villainy and evil that live and find continued sustenance from within, not MS-13; not Mexicans; not Muslims or the Tahliban: not the imaginary boogie man who lurks in every corner and crevice of simpleminded people who drank the Kool-Aid served by even more limited men and women who only think in Darwinian terms of the survival of the fittest. And this usually means the richest, not the fittest.
5
Yeah! That pesky Constitution...
3
My plan if the citizenship question actually makes it to the census is to leave it blank and refuse to answer if someone shows up at my door. That is what I would urge all citizens to do. We can skew the information if we refuse. It will not be in our home state’s interest for us to do so, but it might make state’s more interested in saying don’t put the question on the census. I recommend citizens advocate for not answering that question.
6
Fine with me if you don’t want to be counted. I will answer the question and be counted and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.
10
@Citizen I'm not a citizen. I pay taxes just like you do, but I refuse to become a citizen. If my money is good enough for the government, then why shouldn't I enjoy being counted too? It's not like I am being represented anyway...taxation without representation is real for me.
@soto
You can answer the citizenship question and say you are not a citizen and are here legally or illegally. You will be counted if you are here legally and enjoy all the benefits and rights of a legal resident. As a non-citizen legal resident, you can certainly visit your congressman or congresswoman or senators and ask for assistance, if you need it, and you will receive it. You can choose to become a citizen or not.
But if you are here illegally, you should not be here in the first place, and the government has the right to enforce immigration laws. It does not have to limit the question it would like to include in the census form because you may not respond. By avoiding the census, an illegal immigrant chooses not to be counted.
The government needs the census to apportion representatives and to consider allocation of services. The former requires an accurate count of US citizens; the latter requires an accurate count of all residents, citizens and non-citizens alike. If you’re a legal permanent resident without US citizenship, such as my mother, you will have no problem answering this question. As a liberal, I’m fine with that.
16
@IntentReader You're mistaken. The Constitution calls for an enumeration of "persons", i.e., residents, not "citizens." On your second point, you're assuming a general trust of the Federal Government; at the moment that sits at around 18% of the population.
8
@IntentReader
Your argument proves too much, Carl. A "person" is not equivalent to a "resident". And "person" is not equivalent to a "person who is currently present in the jurisdiction". Why, the Constitution is wholly silent in these critical issues! Maybe it didn't mean to require physical presence at all. There are a lot of "persons" in Somalia, after all.
Why not anyone who has been physically present in the jurisdiction for a "substantial" part of the preceding ten years, with each individual entitled to define "substantial" for himself?
If you think I'm not taking your argument seriously, you're right. There was no illegal immigration issue on the table before the Founding Fathers, and a cursory examination of the term "person" under English common law would indicate something more restrictive than just someone who has a pulse and fills out a pair of pants.
1
Really? You trust the integrity of a government that has already stated they plan to expand ways to *strip* citizenship from naturalized *citizens*? Does your mother trust that she will never accidentally run a stop sign and that this event will not be used to strip her of her legal status and deport her?
You may speak for yourself, but I think you are presumptuous speaking for what fears your mother may have, given a different citizenship status from your own.
I ask these questions as one who normally would have no problem with such questions. Our ancesters provided this information, and it is extremely helpful to their descendants in genealogical research. But I realize that is not the main purpose of the census. But we are also living with a government that increasingly does not value even its natural born citizens, let alone naturalized citizens or other immigrants of any status. If you arent a corporation or rich donor, many politicians just dont value you.
2
If the new citizenship question becomes a part of the 2020 Census, it may deter participation by immigrants across the country, who do not want an official record of their immigration status and who fear that their responses will be used by the government to harm them and their families.
However, Title 13 of the United States Code governs how the Census is conducted and how its data are handled. Information is confidential as per 13 U.S.C. § 9.
But who trusts the government anymore with the confidentiality of one’s data?
How about some time-honored civil disobedience if Trump/Sessions and good old Wilber have their way? I know I personally interact with at least 10 immigrants without their documents. They bus our tables, they paint our houses, they mow our lawns, and they process our chicken into convenient bloodless parts. I’d suggest all of us know them, whether you’re willing to appreciate them and their hard work or not.
Let’s each add 10 members to our families to make up for the non-citizens not being counted. If we’re challenged, then we know that the census data are not confidential. And then we’ll know that these immigrants were wise not to participate-- and are smarter than we are.
7
Before the illegal immigrants started to entering in thousands, America had its diners, lawn mowers and construction workers. American citizens were paid well and they paid taxes and social security. Illegal immigrants drove down wages and most do not pay taxes and we pay for the education and medical care of their children. And they have a lot of children. Kindness is easy when someone else is footing the bill.
11
@Citizen
Lies. Illegal immigrants have very little to do with wage stagnation. And the unemployment rate is at historic lows. The illegals who actually are legitimately employed by businesses who conceivably could employ citizens as well, absolutely pay taxes, including income tax, which is withheld. Plus everyone pays sales taxes and many other taxes and fees.
1
Everything was fine until the Pilgrims showed up.
9
Citizen and legal immigrants should be counted. Illegal immigrants should not. If a state (e.g., California) doesn’t like the impact of that (i.e., loss of federal funding, fewer house seats) then don’t be a haven/sanctuary for illegal immigrants.
19
The thing is, illegal immigrants are people, too. The census is supposed to count all people, not just all citizens. There is a good reason for this. People use roads; people use hospitals; people rely on police and fire departments to come to their aid in an emergency. People go to schools. These are things the government helps people with, regardless of citizenship status. And this is as it should be. I don’t want to live in a society where a person is denied emergency services or basic social services because of citizenship status. And don’t forget, many undocumented residents are taxpayers, too.
If we have such a problem with having people come into this country illegally, why not just penalize the employers who provide the economic incentive for them to come, or remove the economic incentive entirely by instituting e-verify, rather than declare our neighbors less than worthy of basic human dignity? That is basically what we’re doing if we say they need not be counted...
5
If you think that undocumented people aren’t people, we have a much bigger problem to discuss.
3
As usual the NYT is advocating for illegal immigrants and against American citizens.
22
@jaco Actually it's advocating for following the Constitution.
12
Things are not that simple. Even though conservatives want them to be.
4
I'm intrigued by the number of comments citing the phrase in the Constitution, "excluding Indians not taxed," as if "Indians" are less than the South's slaves who were apportioned at 2/3 of a human.
Do any of those quoting these clauses see a problem with (1) the attitudes of the framers of the Constitution or (2) the continuing adherence to bias against the original inhabitants and Citizens, by definition, of "America."
6
it's 3/5 actually.
2
The first US Census was conducted by the US Postal Service. Ben Franklin, who had been our first Postmaster General (among many other things) wrote a letter with his suggestions on how to conduct the census. Then, to a greater degree than now, it was not possible to physically count every person. Franklin suggested that in areas where an individual count was not possible, the worker make an estimate by comparing those areas to physically similar well-counted areas, paying especial attention to waterways.
And of course all people were counted, even women (who were not then citizens), albeit with slaves and Native Americans each counting as 3/5 of a human being.
5
@Marvant Duhon, excellent, but now the population has ballooned to over 330 million and who knows how many are here illegally soaking up taxpayers dime and being paid off the books.
Count the citizens, no subsidy for sanctuary states.
3
@JRS The ‘sanctuary states’ pay more to the feds than they get back. the red states get more $$ than they contribute.
1
While it is a crime to lie on the census the maximum penalty is a $500 fine. Also your census responses are not allowed to be used against you in court without your permission, so I’m not quite sure how a prosecutor proves the case without presenting your census form as evidence.
The question just encourages non-citizens to lie.
4
Emily, you threw in the kitchen sink, but failed to find the middle ground -- it has two facets:
ONE: As for who to count for apportionment and districting purposes, the middle ground dividing line is to count all citizens and all lawful permanent residents (C+LPR), and exclude all non-immigrants and unlawful immigrants (NI+UI).
The idea is to count all those who are eligible or are likely to become eligible to vote, and exclude those who are (presently) unlikely to become eligible to vote.
States with more NI+UI will lose ground. -- States with less NI+UI will gain ground.
TWO: Implement the Wyoming rule for House apportionment and the Electoral College -- instead of first guaranteeing each state one House Rep and then arbitrarily cutting off the apportionment process at 385 (50 + 385 = 435), the Wyoming rule starts the process at zero and continues until the smallest state gets its first House rep via apportionment.
This results in an enlarged House (542 based on 2010 census) and Electoral College (542 + 100 + 3 for DC = 645), and ensures that House reps and electoral votes are more closely based on true population. (Note actual future numbers will differ based on population changes and not counting NI+UI.)
In this case, larger states will gain ground. -- Smaller and medium-sized states will lose ground.
The net outcome is anybody's guess -- let the chips, and the votes, fall where they may.
7
What a mess. Even the speculation about lost or gained seats is a ludicrous exercise in playing with the worth of humans as constituents. A person is a constituent. Whether an 11 day old American (a consumer of diapers), to a 111 year old US resident who is Honduran (maybe also a consumer of diapers), all humans either use or produce goods that are in American markets. The 111 yr old Honduran is probably also paying taxes, rent/mortgage, insurance to various public and private entities. The 11 day old infant has parents who may have bought a house or car, paid huge taxes on that car, and are buying (from an American store) all the diapers and baby clothes needed.
Both are real people; both live in America, in specific wards, precincts, states, municipalities, whatever...... Count them as real people! What is it that the "non-citizen" haters think about their neighbors who look different, speak other languages, and wear colorful or drab garments that "don't look American"? How does a human "hate" another human that he/she does not know personally? If you, yourself, are a person worthy of respect and of being counted in the Census, so is any other human person--every last person living here!
Who originated this vile and ignorant idea? Fortunately, the Constitution was changed many years ago. There is no such living being as 3/5ths of a person; there is no such creature as a Zero person.
God save America from itself!
14
I guarantee you that no legal resident in the US of A would mind if the census includes questions regarding citizenship and residency status. For the record, I used to be a legal permanent resident here.
15
@PaulN Speak for yourself. I was born in this country, am a U.S. citizen, and I object to asking a citizenship, residency status or birthplace question in the Census. In this administration’s hands those are political questions.
4
I too am a citizen and I think a country needs to know how many citizens there are. I do not object to it, I fully support it. It is high time it was done.
3
@Cam, I am sorry I meant to refer to legal non-US-citizen residents.
The claim that cities and large states are unfairly over represented in the US is a sick joke. The opposite is obviously true.
6
@Christian Haesemeyer not if it's due to a disproportionately large population of residents who are ineligible to vote.
1
@davenky Ineligible but still paying taxes. Should I just stop paying taxes then?
wait, so you're telling me foreigners will no longer be able to influence the political weight of a given US state? woah
9
Why not just bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts?
“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire." -James Madison, Federalist No. 10
Everybody should answer yes
2
GOP would prefer we go back to allowing only white men over 21 owning property in order to cling to power.
4
@John Burke the people who do not contribute (pay taxes) should have no voice in government!
3
I guess you don't want children, disabled, elderly to be counted; they are not"contributing. " nice going.
6
It’s refreshing to find among these commenters someone who advocates the participation of five-year-olds, illegal immigrants, and foreign tourists, to name but a few, in our governmental process. All of these persons, after all, participate in the economy and pay some sort of tax, even if only a sales tax when they purchase something. Kudos, and keep up the good work!
1
So...I've read this article three times and am pretty quick on the reading comprehension.
They're sound alarm bells because Republicans want to apportion political power and electoral votes based on citizens, acknowledging in the article itself that the current system is 'rigged' for Democrats.
Seems reasonable that Democrats would want elections to be a fair process, not tilted towards their side of the field.
3
@Erica Smythe Then if we want to be really fair, and not "tilt" the process, we should do away with the electoral college, since that unfairly gives more voting power to states with small population and most of those states vote Republican.
2
Add this to the calculations.
A child born of an American citizen is automatically an American citizen - from birth - no tests, no classes, and no taxes. That child would be automatically added to any census but, in the case of count by citizenship, a day-old baby has more right to be heard than a tax-paying, non-citizen immigrant.
Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Perhaps a better question would be, "How many money-earning tax payers live in this household?" Oops, that wouldn't work. That would exclude stay-at-home mothers or fathers who draw no salary but work their tails off.
Better leave things the way they are. The constitution was written for the"People,"most of whom, at that time, were immigrants and "Subjects" of a foreign king.
5
Thoughts:
Surely the Constitution experts among Republicans know Congress is apportionment is based on counted people ("persons") NOT counted citizens?
Why would an "illegal", knowing the consequences, acknowledge such a status?
4
Whether or not any question is asked or answered, anyone completing the form with name and address is counted otherwise. Period. How hard is that?
2
Non citizens can't vote and should not be counted. What is the problem?
13
@bill t The "problem" is that the Constitution says otherwise. If you don't agree with it, amend it.
3
This is a mighty interesting article and the maps were
quite informative.
Anything change that will take political power away from
California and New York City sits fine with me.
Why in the world are non-citizens counted ?
9
@John Brown Because the Constitution indicates that they should be.
5
@John Brown
Because the Constitution refers to a count of "persons." Non citizens are persons.
4
With respect, that question probably *should* change the power structure and dynamics in those locales. Any democratic government is to be run at the behest and in the interest of its citizens.
Residents may be entitled to certain protections and extended some obvious freedoms. But no other country would allow those who have not made the investment of citizenship any political power.
It's like giving me shares in a hotel chain because I stayed there a few nights.
12
@DZ How would you feel if the hotel took your money and then shut off your room's electricity and water because you were not a shareholder?
1
Well reported and with dizzying implications. Lefty conventional wisdom is that right wing concern about rampant illegal immigration has been overblown because the number of undocumented migrants is relatively modest. But this report suggests we have quite a large hidden population of non citizens living in the US off the books. A recent Times article on an unrelated topic mentioned in passing there are approximately 500,000 undocumented migrants living in NYC. That's an attention-getting number. But the point of the census is to count people who are living in the US, whatever their legal status may be. Is it fair to include a census citizenship question that could be at odds with maximizing the number of respondents? A complicated puzzle with no easy - or correct - answer.
6
@Beantownah I’m not seeing the difficulty. You’ve admitted the goal is an accurate count. The Republcans clearly want an inaccurate count for their own political benefit.
@Beantownah While I don't necessarily dispute the main premise of your comment (i.e. there is a meaningfully substantial population of undocumented immigrants), can we interpret non-citizen to equal undocumented? Couldn't a non-citizen also be, for example, a green card holder?
1
@Beantownah Is it an easy question to answer.
Count them all...then only allow the apportionment of Congressional Power and Electoral Votes based on citizens.
Why should I take a haircut living in MN with a relatively small # of illegals vs. NY or CA that has massive #'s? By cheating, you're taking away a Congressional Seat, an electoral vote...and my equal protection rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Guess we'll have to let the SCOTUS rule on this one.
4
This analysis is entirely incorrect. Under the Constitution, Congress is apportioned based upon the number of "persons" as determined by the census, not the number of citizens. See U.S. Const. Art. I, section 2; Amend. XIV, section 2 ("Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.")
There is a representation issue relating to citizens, but it does not involve the number of Congressmen assigned to each state. The question is whether the states can use citizens, rather than persons, to create the districts in the state. If citizens were used instead of persons, urban centers would tend to lose representatives to rural areas.
5
The issue of a growing disparity in representation in the House mentioned toward the end of the article could be solved by implementing something like the so-called Wyoming Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule which does not require a constitutional amendment: just a Congress that could agree to lift the artificial cap on the size of the house.
2
Seems to me the Constitution is pretty clear. And, by the way, both the Senate and the electoral college are already tilted heavily in favor of smaller, rural States.
4
@David That's because New York and other populated Northern states wanted to only count a black man as 2/3 of a person to keep the political power in the South "on the plantation" as it were.
The Constitution was written so that there are numerous checks and balances with enumerated powers bestowed to each branch.
The Senate configuration is one such check and balance.
The fact that 2/3 of the nations welfare recipients live in California is enough for me to hope that your split into 3 states gets approved at the ballot box. My other hope is that all 2/3 of those recipients opt to move to Silicon Valley and San Francisco..and San Diego.
3
The Constitution confers its rights on all people in America. Nowhere does it state that these rights are limited to citizens. This census question is just one more means that the GOP is using to divide Americans, and turn us against each other. It is becoming increasingly clear that the real enemy of America is the Republican Congress. They work only for their wealthy benefactors and care not a whit about the average working American.
10
@KenF Absolutely false. A number of Constitutional rights are explicitly reserved to citizens, including eligibility to serve as a Senator, Representative or President.
7
@KenF The Constitution most certainly does not confer its rights on all people "in" America, as much as you'd like that. The right to vote, as one of many examples, is granted by the Constitution. Just because you snuck into the country does not give you the right to vote in our elections.
8
@KenF Thank goodness the Bill of Rights still applies to "persons" not just "citizens".
This this question would intimidate anyone from completing the form is a made up issue. Undocumented immigrants probably already fail to complete the census because it requires too much identifying information. I seriously doubt that undocumented immigrants would otherwise have willingly given such information, but now suddenly would be unwilling to do so because of one more question. And, the only reason why legal immigrants would be afraid to complete it is the false fear that has been stirred up and publicized.
Has anyone done a professional assessment to determine what percentage of people would fail to complete the census because of the citizenship question ?
Our do our politicians just conveniently make an unsupported assumption for political advantage n?
Both sides are lying here. There are no altruistic reasons for or against the new question, just more political games.
6
The proposed question of Citizenship on the next Census in inappropriate at best. The Constitution clearly states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons. "
Nowhere is Citizenship even mentioned. "Service for a Term of Years" I believe is a reference to Indentured Servitude, illegal in this country. So I guess All Persons are "free Persons" regardless of Citizenship.
Ted Cruz, please lend Donald Trump your copy of the U.S. Constitution.
5
@Steve Come on...you seriously think the SCOTUS is going to deny people in Pennsylvania their equal protection for political power because you read the constitution?
Plus, you intentionally left out a very very important part of this section...which is "not under influence by a foreign government."
Sorry, but if you're a Mexican citizen living here illegally, Mexico has the rights to haul you back there in a heartbeat. You're there's...not ours. The fact they don't pull you back doesn't give you new found rights in the U.S.
4
The answer is: Answer it
5
‘Is this person a citizen?’
Is that how the question will actually be worded, with no specific country mentioned?
If so, everyone could truthfully answer YES....
2
Immigrants who are authorized to work in the United States file the same taxes as any U.S.-native including local, state, and federal taxes. Unauthorized immigrants pay taxes as well, often using the Individual Tax Identification Number and consequently are paying the U.S. government for benefits they can’t even use.
These tax contributions add up. Immigrant-led households across the country collectively paid $223.6 billion in federal taxes and $104.6 billion in combined states and local taxes in 2014, the most recent year for which Census data is available.
"Undocumented immigrants also contributed more than their fair share of taxes. In 2014, they paid an estimated $11.7 billion in combined state and local taxes. Notably, that contribution would rise to an estimated $13.9 billion if they could receive legal status.
Despite not being eligible, undocumented workers pay tax money to benefits programs Americans utilize every day, like Social Security and Medicare."
http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/04/16/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/
If they pay taxes why shouldn't they be counted?
170
@Len Charlap
"If they pay taxes why shouldn't they be counted?"
count them, tax them, but if they are not a citizen then they shouldn't dilute the voting power of a citizen.
32
@Len Charlap
They will be counted- just as non-citizens. I've made money in other countries and paid taxes there, but it doesn't make me eligible to vote. Nor does it entitle a large city to count non-voters to increase their representation in Congress.
35
Counting residents (and not just citizens) accurately helps policy makers plan roads, schools, infrastructure and more. If (and that's a big if) the purpose of asking citizenship is to intimidate, then exclude it form the census. On the other hand, census data are to be private for 72 years, so I don't think that lying on the census form makes a difference anyway. It would be unfortunate but that's what will happen in this climate.
Why should states with higher populations of illegal immigrants be rewarded for arguably actively supporting and enabling those who violate federal law?
121
@CNNNNC Please note that “non-citizen” does not equal “illegal immigrant”. There are about 8.8 million lawful permanent residents (i.e. holders of “Green Cards” or “legal resident aliens”) in the US, many of whom will (based on historical trends) choose to become US citizens when their eligibility allows. Note that this does not include the number of resident workers who reside in the US with temporary work visas (“legal non-resident aliens”), or who remain in the US beyond their visa’s expiration (the latter constituting the vast majority of the “illegal non-resident alien”) population in the US.
3
@CNNNNC Did you know that immigration used to be a state issue and not a federal one? Methinks CT has a fair number of people who are here illegally and you're benefiting from it whether you acknowledge it or not.
@CNNNNC Why should a citizen vote count less in a populous state than in a less populated state? We can ask questions all day....
1
By deliberately discounting non-citizens, this country would do exactly what it supposedly stand against: taxation without representation. Immigrants pay tax (and a not-insignificant amount of it), regardless of their legal status. As it stands, they don't have any say on how the money is going to be spent, because they can't vote even for their local city council (which, as far as I know, hardly does any 'national security' stuff). By robbing their 'representation' in Congress (however small it is), the US government would basically seek a rent from immigrants. Pay for your stay or else...
177
@Paul S
Interesting position.
Corporations pay taxes and don't get to vote. They do get to fund political campaigns as an alternative to voting though.
4
@Paul S The Constitution -- as amended -- allows only citizens to vote, much to my dismay when I immigrated (legally) to the US in 1961. I also felt then that, since my taxes were being spent by Congress, I should have a say. That, and my love for my adopted homeland, led me to become a citizen.
If you want non-citizens to vote -- which I would fight -- the Constitution would need changing. Given only citizens can vote, it is only logical that the apportionment of their representatives be determined by their numbers. That can be determined only if citizenship is part of the census data upon which that computation is based.
16
@Paul S
"By deliberately discounting non-citizens, this country would do exactly what it supposedly stand against: taxation without representation..."
A complete bogus.
No taxation without representation is meant for US CITIZENS.
Tourists pay sales tax too. By your 'reasoning' millions of Chinese tourists in CA, FL, and NYC should give those places a higher representation.
Besides, if you want to tie taxation into representation, why not allocate votes proportionally to the tax amount? This, btw, would be sensible, because those who contribute would have more say over the free-loaders.
As it stands now, Bill Gates, who revolutionized our life, has as much voting power as an intellectually disabled individual, who has not worked a minute of his life but consumed vast resources for his healthcare.
5
‘Is this person a citizen?’ The answer could mean less representation for populous states and big cities.”
Isn’t that the whole idea? Trump ran a campaign of voter suppression and wasn’t afraid to say it. The whole thrust of this Administration is to delay the power of demographics as long as possible.
4
@historyRepeated You cannot suppress the votes of those (i.e. non-citizens) who are legally ineligible to vote in the first place.
6
"The answer could mean less representation for populous states and big cities." Seems like a tacit acknowledgement that there are plenty of non-citizens voting, voting for Democrats and their Socialist platform.
Any immigrant who has done everything properly has nothing to fear. The Democrats are using the fear factor to alienate anyone who is not native born.
The USA is about the only country that does not require some proof of citizenship to vote. This type of voter fraud is critical to the Democrats success for total vote count. Fortunately we have the Electoral College to balance things out so we don't have a handful of population centers controlling the entire country.
19
@Mark you do need proof of citizenship to vote in the US
4
@Mark You clearly don't understand this.
The constitution doesn't count citizenship when considering population numbers.
The population number determines only how many representatives a state has.
This does NOT mean immigrants are voting in elections.
Keep trumpeting the false story of massive voter fraud.
Not surprised you love the Electoral college, which allows minority (NOT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS) to controller this country.
How very democratic of you!
4
The questions surrounding illegal vs legal voters is like standing around speculating about if there is other life in the universe or is the world flat, but doing nothing about it. Meaning no effort is made to understand the situation being discussed. The facts are we have no idea how big or small this problem is and that is the problem.
The purpose of the census is to collect FACTS about the population of the US based on addresses. This information is then used in all aspects of governance of our Republic. And citizenship is an important part. It's already against the law to discriminate based on national origin so that argument to block that question is moot.
Washington has failed, year after year, decade after decade, to address the problem of widespread illegal immigration. There are no accurate numbers. Just some guesstimates bantered about. Hardly the way to properly manage such a divisive subject.
It's called the truth. If someone is afraid of the truth then they have bigger problems.
2
Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons.
I do not see anything about the numbers having to be composed of citizens. Slaves, whom the founding fathers shamefully denied any of the inalienable rights, were at least counted as three-fifths.
Doesn't anyone actually read the constitutions they carry around in their breast pockets?
1
Well then, perhaps non citizens should be counted as 3/5ths of a person?
Asking if a person is a citizen is a reasonable question for taking a census. Sorry.
20
A few quick thoughts:
1. legal residents who are non-citizens are not allowed to vote in federal elections, but I have a problem limiting their count when the policies developed in Washington (e.g., tax law) impact them just the same. I would make the same argument for counting non-voting age individuals too for the same reason--they don't vote but are still impacted by federal laws so should therefore be counted.
2. I'm not an expert but what prevents everyone from just saying they are a citizen and, in essence, lying? It asks for name and DOB but not social security or passport number. The current administration has already criminalized them so what would lying on this form really do? I would imagine that any illegal immigrant who lied on the census would just be pardoned by the next administration that is less hostile or sympathetic to immigrants and their cause for lying on such a form (assuming they are not deported before this can happen).
I could be wrong on this last part, but just throw stuff out there.
1
@ER That's right. I ought to get 12 votes for all the people in my house, including my 3 dogs.
2
14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, COUNTING THE WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN EACH STATE, excluding Indians not taxed." The United States Census Bureau (officially the Bureau of the Census, as defined in Title 13 U.S.C. § 11) is responsible for the United States Census. The Bureau of the Census is part of the United States Department of Commerce.[3]"
So, how does an originalist or anyone who insists on a literal reading of the Constitution get to read this as "The whole number of CITIZENS" as opposed to "the whole number of people?
8
@Critical Thinker The closest analogy is likely that people without papers are similar to the Indians not taxed.
We don't count tourists in the census, even though they are people too.
1
The biggest imbalance of power is that a state like Iowa gets the same number of senators as a state like California.
Not that Iowa is bad or undeserving, but there are roughly 3 million people there, while there are 17.8 million in Los Angeles alone. Talk about inequitable distribution of representation!
Just another GOP stab at immigrants . . .
6
@Kalkat That would be why Congress is made up of two separate houses. Bills do have to pass both houses to become law. So do impeachments and potential Constitutional Amendments.
California, with its 53 seats in the House, holds 12% of the House and 10% of the entire Electoral College. That means it holds 9 times the number that Iowa does. I would hardly call that an imbalance of power.
3
@Bethany
You are underestimating the power of the Senate!
"No taxation without representation" was the principle upon which this country was founded. Should the Republicans prevail in their effort to aggregate more political power to themselves at the expense of the nation's taxpaying non-citizen residents, their hypocrisy will be stripped bare for all to see.
5
THere are hundreds of thousands of LEGAL immigrants here who must pay taxes and abide by the law. Are you now telling me that these LEGAL immigrants have to pay taxes but not have proper representation? Do they have due process under the law? Basically they don't count?
This is a nasty slippery slope.
6
@Elizabeth Correct. If they want to vote, they need to complete the naturalisation process, as millions have done over the past 150 years.
5
Isn’t ironic that long ago, conservatives argued to count slaves for purposes of the census to gain more representation, yet slaves earned no money for themselves, paid no taxes, and were generally treated like animals working for a master against their will.
Now they are trying to suppress counting non-citizens that ostensively pay taxes, own property, etc, that likely live in more liberal States in hopes of shifting representation in direction of... conservatives.
And liberals get blamed for wanting something for nothing...
History repeats.
7
The Census is a very comprehensive survey of how many people actually live and reside in the United States and its Territories. It is not a survey on citizens or "citizenship". In fact, those US citizens who live abroad are NOT included. The data gathered is critical for proper resource allocation and the like.
Any attempt to skew this information, by not counting all people who actually reside in the USA, is a disservice to everyone and contrary to the purpose of the Census.
8
Why don’t we just count property owners and slaveholders? The GOP wants to take us back to the good old days, right?
3
And here I was thinking that the Republicans' question was actually "Is this citizen a person?" More fool me...
1
The caveat here is simple. Is this a GOP idea? If so, and it clearly is, do not allow it to happen. This is more 'white is right' political racism sponsored by our white supremacist leadership.
2
To me, changing voter (I understand taxpayers') rights in such a way would be a very element of a "deep state".
Disgusting and terrifying.
1
This brings to mind my grandmother who as she got closer to the age of 100 received her census questionnaire in the mail. She asked me to check it. She had written her birthday, month and day, but not the birth year. I said to her, they’re going to want to know your birth year. She said, they don’t need it; if they want to send me a birthday card, now they know when.
2
Reading reader responses indicates that many are not pertinent to the issue in the article.
It is not that the non-citizen resident in this country is not to be counted. The fact that he or she is requested to complete the census means they will be counted.
The author of the article speculates that they will be discriminated against or at least the communities they live in will be discriminated against as a result of the statistics obtained from the question.
The author is free to speculate all she wants about what the government will or will not do with the information it collects. She may be right or she may be wrong.
It is still just speculation fed perhaps by the visceral fear of Donald Trump that seems to have infected large parts of the left.
15
The main issue is that the courts need to decide who should be counted when determining representation. Having an answer--one consistent answer across the entire nation rather than 50+, constantly changing according to local politics--is much more important than the exact details of what that answer might be.
The federal government should allocate resources to the states based on their number of citizens and legal residents, not on their number of undocumented migrants. If California stopped receiving federal money for the undocumented, it might rethink its stance on sanctuary cities.
22
Rather than spending all of this money on a lawsuit, why not inform the people that information from the census CANNOT be used by law enforcement. We have more than enough time to put together a marketing plan to ensure that everyone is well aware of the census and its uses.
Having had to fill out the long form last go around, I had to inform the Census Bureau my status and a lot of other things as well. The question has always been asked, just not always on the general form.
1
This is a brilliant approach to further demonstrating to the productive parts of the country that we aren't wanted. This will simply further undermine the legitimacy of the United States and hasten the day when it gets dissolved. The coastal states are waking up to the fact that they're under attack by the United States and should leave.
16
Sure. There is a lot of talk about joining Canada but never any mention of joining Mexico.
1
@Doug K
Right on! I just hope I am able to return to my West Coast home before it all breaks loose. Miss the Bay Area every day.
1
Slightly off topic, but related to the broader views of immigration and representation: A friend who lives in Switzerland but is not a Swiss citizen recently told me that he and his wife can now vote in local elections. They have been living there for 8 years now and the local laws now acknowledge them as stake-holders and tax-payers in the community. Therefore, their political will is considered worthy of representation.
I am not sure if this goes only for the canton on Geneva or all Switzerland, and they can only vote in local elections, in their own canton. I offer this bit of information not as an argument for letting non-citizens vote in US on any level - obviously, every country gets to set its own voting laws, and I would be shocked if there was political will in the US to let non-citizens weigh in on local matters. Instead, I mention this as one way people in the developed world think about political representation of non-citizens, since so many commenters express astonishment at the idea that non-citizens should be represented at all (despite the Constitution, and the taxation).
9
@Jane
Does your friend have a visa or is he living there illegally?
4
Non-citizens can live here legally. It's not an either/or situation.
1
And what do you think the Swiss would do about 5,000 people a week illegally crossing their frontier and claiming a share of Swiss social welfare benefits?
3
We are playing with fire and a gas can, dangerous dangerous stuff. If you want to send the US into a deep depression, kick all the immigrants out. You will then find out just how much the economy depends on non-citizens to do the work at various points in the economy. It isn't just the low paid, low skilled work either. Walk into almost any of our prestigious, liberal, universities and check the citizenship of the teaching assistants, lab workers, research fellows, etc. We, as a nation, have built our economy on the backs of non-citizens. Succumbing to the passion of the moment will have the unintended, but entirely predictable, consequence of wrecking the economy for years.
Lastly, setting up a caste system based on changing the definition of who is a citizen is how many civilizations have fallen. As I have said, we are playing with fire and a gas can.
13
@Bruce1253 The system of counting in use now has led to the most prosperous nation on Earth. That prosperity comes from the contributions of citizens and non-citizens alike. Each group has its role and fills it well. Bottom line: Don't mess with success.
7
@Jay S My suggestion is that rather than pretending this system doesn't exist, we be up front about it. This would allow fair treatment for the immigrants and provide a path to citizenship for those who wish it. For those who do not, then a recognized way of working in the US and a means of 'going home for the holiday' with a right of return for those in the system.
We have been sticking our heads in the sand for too long. This leads to abuse by unscrupulous employers and politicians who want to whip up fear for their own ends. It is past time to fix our immigration system.
@Bruce1253 Yes, it is past time to fix our immigration system. My question is why have the Republicans not already done so? They have been the majority in Congress for years, so where is the legislation? This issue is another example that shows Republicans can win elections, but they can't actually govern.
I am surprised this question is only be asked now; it needs to be asked. Americans must know how many among them are not.
11
@Southern Boy
Not what? Human, worthy of respect? If we are dividing people into "haves" and "nots," then consider me a "not."
5
@Southern Boy it already is asked in the surveys it just isn't used in the census to further rob cities of representation..
2
@Lucien Dhooge Don't worry, Lucien. Southern Boy comes from a "taker state", one that receives more from the Federal Govt than it contributes. Once great states like New York have "fewer" citizens, there will less money to hand over to the wretched poor of the South. And then will have to lump it
We will find a way to solve the immigration issue when employers are sent to jail for illegal hiring. When crops rot in the field. When nursing homes are unstaffed. When the economy collapses. It’s so sad that nobody can explain this to Trump and avoid all this.
13
As the author points out, restoring the citizenship question to the federal census “could generate the data necessary to redefine how political power is apportioned in America.” Used to apportion congressional voting districts, it would reapportion political power exclusively to U.S. citizens, which seems reasonable since only U.S. citizens can vote in federal election. As the ongoing Russian Investigation indicates, most Americans think foreign nationals should play no role in U.S. elections.
As the author points out, “the American Community Survey already asks this citizenship question of a sample of the population, but the author neglects to point out that the ACS–not the decennial census—is now used to allocate federal funds. According to the Census Bureau, "The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $675 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year." So restoring the citizenship question would not result in funding shortages.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about.htm
9
Why should non-citizens be counted for the purpose of apportioning representation?
11
@Dana Charbonneau: Because representation entails more than a quid-pro-quo to one's supporters for their patronage. Despite what Trump seems to believe, a nationally elected official is bound by oath to uphold the entirety of our Constitution and our laws in defense of the interests of all persons, not just citizens, not just eligible voters, not just registered voters, and certainly not just the minority of voters (in his case) who display their allegiance to the officeholder.
9
@Davide, Yes, this is why the citizenship question is so important. Representation should be based only on the number of citizens, since only citizens can vote, but Representatives should understand the total population numbers that they represent. Why does everyone assume that non-citizens won’t respond and fill out the census because of this question? No one in the U.S. on a visa or green card should have any problem with that question and most would want to be counted.
1
Because legal aliens own property, live in communities, and pay taxes like you.
8
This seems like a manufactured issue. First, I would bet based on my experience around the world, that illegal immigrants would not fill out a census form unless you put a gun to their head.
Second, the census was meant to count everyone who is in the country. I see no problem with asking if the person filling the form is a citizen or not. If you are here legally what's the big deal.
The canard of no taxation without representation for non-citizens is absurd. I've been an expat for many years. I pay taxes in the country where I work but I don't get to vote in local elections unless I am a citizen.
11
It seems to me that this citizen question on the 2020 census questionnaire is a political ploy. Prior to becxoming an American citizen I had a permanent resident ID card (or green card) for 25 years. As a matter of fact when I came to the US from Canada my ID card, which was issued to me in Houston, Tx, had no expiration date. I was gainfully employed in my profession in the US for over 35 years and paid taxes all along. My question is why should an individual be overlooked as far as money allocations to the differend states are concerned just because the person is not an American citizen but a permanent resident? The US certainly has a right to deny voting previleges to a legal alien but why should that person not be counted as far as allocation of money to the individual states are concerned, especially if that money is used to support the infrastructure and other services that states provide for their communities and all their residents.
13
There is more than legal immigrants required to pay taxes - but not allowed to vote
"If you are an immigrant man (documented or undocumented) living in the United States, age 18 through 25, you are required to register."
https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Immigrants-and-Dual-Nationals
If you come voluntarily to this country you accept its regulations. That includes registering with the draft - and if required to serve
4
High quality marketing research companies need a non-prejudiced 2020 census. Technically speaking the next census should show all the changes that occurred during and after the Great Recession. We should remember that millions lost their homes, and had to change their way of living. In Florida many young persons returned to live with their parents or had to reduce the size of the area they occupied before . And thousands were forced to go to another state. How many? We don't know yet. Knock, knock, you can't use a political way of thinking, to affect thousands of industries and millions of jobs. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent in October 2009. Where are Procter & Gamble, Colgate Palmolive and other companies that use Marketing Research for long range planning, and to make corrective actions? Please don't waste the money in a census that will not reflect the real situation of the U.S. population.
2
Other readers have eloquently stated that the Constitution directs the census to count residents, not citizens or voters.
I'd like to talk about the politics of this.
1. It is clear that adding the citizen question would benefit Republicans more than Democrats.
2. This issue is a political trap that Republicans have set, and some Democrats are walking right into it.
3. There is nothing inherently wrong or illegal with the citizenship question on face value (despite the clear political motivation and likely outcome).
Democrats, this issue is not the hill we want to die on. Focus on winning the war, not this battle.
I am deeply appalled and outraged by the actions of the Trump administration in regard to immigration: throwing children in cages; demonizing "the other" with racist rhetoric; and so forth.
But the citizenship question is not the fight worth fighting. Rather, this is just a trap to paint Democrats as hysterical radicals who are against enforcing federal laws - playing right into the hands of the reactionary xenophobic nativist Trump agenda.
Don't fall for it. Focus on the real issues in regard to immigration, and sensible and legal solutions. Take the high ground. Let them have the citizenship question.
6
@MidtownATL
No one is saying do not count everyone. What is being requested is information regarding citizenship in this country not existence in this country
2
@MidtownATL I am not a Rep. or Dem. I do have difficulty with those on both sides who see only their side as having all the merit and good will and the other side only evil. I see you realize that there is nothing inherently wrong with the citizenship question, but, I do not think you see how one-sided your views are (as with cons too). You see that the citizenship q. favor Rs more than Ds. But do you see how not having it favors Ds and not Rs? You see Rs as wanting the question of citizenship as a trap that would paint Ds as "hysterical radicals," but don't seem to see that many Ds are for no borders, no ICE (some are running on it). That is actually radical. You see racist rhetoric on the right, but seem not to notice the racism of the Obama admin., which reflexively took the side of blacks in disputes which did not even call for his input (Gates, Martin-Zimmerman, Ferguson) and even a D member of the Civ. Rights branch of his DOJ resigned over the imbalance of enforcement. Both sides can be bigoted. So are the activities of BLM, whose name is an affront to equal rights.
I am glad to see you are talking to your own side, which is what anyone who has a "side" should be doing, rather than castigating the other side - they aren't listening. And I'm glad to see you oppose radicalism on the left, just as bigotry on the right. I think you are going to find it is growing and you need to speak more.
1
Illegal immigrants have the immigration courts to protect their rights. They are not entitled to representation in the Congress: only citizens do. To get an accurate count of citizens and illegal immigrants we need to pass a law that requires anyone who applies for a change in their immigration status to have a census record of their presence in the USA and show a record of filing tax returns.
It is absurd to say a country should not accurately count its citizens because it has too many illegal immigrants. Find a way to count illegal immigrants.
7
The Founding Fathers said the census should count all persons, not just citizens. Apportionment in the House of Representatives was based on enumerated persons, not citizens. Of course, African-Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person.
1
@Citizen ... I always try and remain respectful in this forum... But idiotic, ignorant comments like yours show why American democracy if failing.
If anyone would should be disqualified from representation in congress, it is people like you who don't even know the basic laws of this country.
Congress represents all persons in the USA, not just citizens....
2
Celeste
Then why don’t non-citizens have a vote? Illegal immigrants should not be here in the first place. Democracy is failing in this country when over 11 million illegal immigrants are counted as if they are lawful residents. Democracies fail when people do not support the rule of law and support illegal immigration.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
2
It depends on what "citizen" is if you take a long view, but unfortunately that is not the intent of this sneaky approach to intimidating and failure to count all persons residing in the U.S.
1
@Jean Gallup
A U.S. citizen is anyone entitled to U.S citizenship by birthright or by naturalization; there is no other definition.
The citizen question was added to the U.S. census in 1820 and consistently asked on census forms until 1950, when it was eliminated to save space. The citizenship question reappeared on the census long from in 2000. However, the long form was discontinued after the 2000 census and replaced with the annual American Community Survey, which includes the citizenship question.
The census would still endeavor to count all residents. Census takers visit each residence that doesn't return the census forms. If residents refuse to answer question, the census takers estimate the number of residents at each address. They ask neighbors, if necessary.
7
Thank you Mr. Case for reminding people that the census bureau used it before and it was a not a problem. It has become political now because not including it benefits Democrats.,,, at least the pundits say so b
This was bound to happen with sanctuary cities and sanctuary states that are encouraging a lawless border. The current system incentivizes border states to look the other way and help illegal entry of people coming in to the US.
11
No, it doesn't. The border is tighter than its been in the thirty years I have lived on the border. It is definitely not "lawless". That is just silly. No state is helping undocumented people over the border. That is also silly. Maybe border dwellers ought to be the ones creating the rules; after all, we know what is actually going on in the borderlands. Then maybe these ridiculous stories wouldn't be spread by people who live thousands of miles from the US-Mexico border.
8
I won't answer a census question about citizenship and I strongly encourage other NYTimes readers to refuse to answer it, as well. What are they going to do about that problem? Throw us all in jail? Right.
4
@Patricia Maurice: That was going to be my post: what happens if you simply don't answer the question? Do they then throw away that count? Of course Republicans would, but what about the Census Bureau?
@Patricia Maurice
My thinking exactly. I have routinely refused to answer Census questions that I find objectionable. In fact, I worked for the Census Bureau in college and was told not to press the issue of unanswered questions.
1
@Patricia Maurice That's my plan!!!
1
No matter what the Republicans claim this is another attempt by them to lock in their right-wing agenda and foist it on the rest of the country. Along with gerrymandering the election districts, the obstacles thrown in the way of registering to vote, this is just another way of retaining their power. For at the end of the day, the Republican party and Trump in particular LOST the popular vote to Hillary. All these machinations are just a way to overcome that.
5
All the studies have shown that the citizenship question suppresses the response rate from non-citizens. The direct result is lower representation in the House of Representatives for States with higher populations of non-citizens — States that tend to be Blue.
Adding the citizenship question is nothing more than a brazen effort by Republicans to further tilt the electoral playing field in their direction — as if voter suppression and gerrymandering weren’t enough. And now with Merrill Garland’s seat on SCOTUS having been stolen by McConnell, we can be sure the right-wing justices, who never fail to reason backward from the result they want to reach, will find a way to uphold this heinous government action.
7
The Constitution says 'persons,' not citizens.
I guess originalism must have followed Nino Scalia to the grave.
6
@Dave T.: Nevertheless, stay tuned for its resurrection of convenience to the party in power. Coming to a courtroom near you.
3
Only citizens matter in this regard. Resident aliens are guests in this country until such time as they become citizens.
4
@QED The Constitution specifically says "persons" and not "citizens". Resident Aliens not only pay all taxes that US citizens pay but they are also required to register for the Selective Service like all other US male citizens which means they can be drafted into the US military. Hell, yes, representation is required for these folks as well. They may not be able to vote but they should get representation.
No taxation without representation is the basis of Congress.
4
What’s wrong with asking someone who fills out a US census form “Are you a United States citizen?”
10
Here's an idea - Going back into history, perhaps we can compromise on counting illegal immigrants as three fifths of a person.
4
@John Archer: The sentiment behind both is transparently identical.
1
Illegal immigrants cannot and should not be able to vote
So don't count them
7
@Luciano It is not about voting but about representation. Even illegal immigrants pay taxes. The premise of Congress is no taxation without representation.
5
Census will occur in April/May 2020, about six months before the next Presidential election. If there are significantly more votes cast in a given election district in November 2020, than there were self admitted citizens (i.e. the only people actually eligible to vote in Federal elections) in the 2020 Census results for that election district, then the Federal government will have pretty conclusive evidence of voting fraud. This question has been added precisely because proof (or disproof) of voting fraud has to date been so difficult to obtain. Once the 2020 Census is complete and the 2020 election results are tallied, we'll know the truth once and for all. By the way, no legitimate citizen would decline to answer this question (unless as part of a concerted effort to cover for illegitimate voting).
2
@Richard: Well, you seem to have everything tied up with a bow. It's a fact that there has been very little voter fraud throughout our history. The "citizen" question is not there to prove or disprove something that rarely happens. The question is there to change the representational makeup of the country, leaning heavily in the Republicans favor. They simply found another way to cheat. Remember that the Constitution says "persons", not "citizens." The question is irrelevant on a census form.
5
@SteverB1 My point was, to date there has been no means to test the proposition "voting fraud is/is not a problem". This question offers some means of proof, and the 2020 Presidential election offers a perfect test case. If the number of California votes for the Democratic candidate equals or exceeds the number of votes Hillary received in 2016 (on which her 3 million vote win in the popular count depends), then you have your proof that voting fraud is likely non-existent. If, on the other hand, following an April 2020 census that includes the citizen question, the number of California Democratic votes in the November election declines, then you will know there was something peculiar about the 2016 totals.
@Richard: What a nonsensical flight of fancy. We have voter registration for that very purpose, and all evidence indicates zero aliens voting, despite the GOP's best efforts in ginning up self-serving "voter fraud" hysteria. When the evidence does show fraud, it's almost always committed by U.S. citizens gaming the system for partisan advantage, e.g. showing up to vote for someone else, or sending in a relative's absentee ballot. Just ask an expert: Steve Curtis, ex-chair of the Colorado GOP, who was convicted of and admitted to habitual voter fraud, sadly receiving just a judicial slap on the wrist.
If you were halfway honest, you'd be more concerned by the overt and massive voter fraud perpetrated by gerrymandering, turnout suppression and statutory disenfranchisement according to <insert--favorite-bogeyman-status-here>. But we get it, you're desperate for tribal advantage, and why not, since logic and evidence are both stacked against you?
1
The headline here seems to be jumping to a conclusion that rest of the article says it's simply not possible.
So, the headline grabbed my attention but the real meat is in the story that basically says that citizenship question is at best informative and at worse, could practically not be used.
Over 40 years of my participating in our elections - our population has gone up from some 200 million plus to today's 330 plus million.
And politics as we know it has changed but not because of census.
The South went from Democrat to Republican - not because we started excluding blacks or including blacks in census. The coatal states went solid Democrat - again not because of census - but better education, mass migration that made them look more internal than at a country as a whole.
Finally, the gerrymandering - politically advantageous - has made our elected representatives choose their voters rather than voters choosing the elected.
So, fear of this question is way over blown. And I do not understand why a court would question motivation rather than the process and simple enumeration.
3
@Neil: Truthfully, the South didn't change. It went nowhere for a long time, and even now its dying white elites continue their slow-walk away from the Lost Cause. It was the Democratic Party of the 1960s (and the now-extinct breed of eastern Republicans) who pushed back against white supremacy. The Dixiecrats abandoned them, and the GOP, tracing a bright line from the mendacious Nixon to the duplicitous Trump, tacked right to fill into the void.
And the answer to "why a court would question motivation" is written in the 150-year (and counting) history of Jim Crow, which you will learn should you choose to educate yourself further.
1
The Constitution is clear on this: representation is to be apportioned based on the number of persons, not on the number of citizens. Good luck to anyone trying to challenge that language in the courts. The real harm in adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census form is its potential to increase the non-response rate, which might lead to underrepresentation for communities with higher proportions of immigrants. But it's far from clear how this would affect the balance of power between the red states and the blue states.
5
As much as readers here seem to be decrying the unfairness of gerrymandering, voter suppression and asking about citizenship status, I see very little mention here of the manner in which both major political parties conduct their presidential primaries.
Large states like California and New York tend to have their primaries well after candidates have already established themselves as front-runners by appealing to the interests of voters in places like New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. Rust belt voters in particular seem to be hurt by this, and the randomness of the process seems no less unfairly stacked against some voters than gerrymandering does.
2
@Middleman MD I also would like to see a better primary process. All states voting on the same day is sometimes suggested, and would be more fair, but prevents candidates from campaigning in each state on a reasonable schedule. Keeping the primary dates as they are, but not revealing any results until the final state has voted is a solution I think could work.
That said, it's good to keep in mind that political parties are free choose their presidential candidate in any manner they like. They don't have to be democratic. If you want to start a political party where you are always its presidential candidate, then passing that right on to your child after your death, you could do that. So there's no requirement at all that our two main political parties actually have primaries; they could go back to smoke-filled rooms if they want, or any other method.
A clause in the 14th Amendment states, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
When this matter eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court, I suspect the conservative justices will discover that all along the word "persons" really meant "citizens." As a matter of historic record, I don't think the concept of "illegal immigrant" existed in 1789 when the Census came into existence. I trust someone will argue before the court that anyone who participated in the War of the Rebellion (also known as the American Civil War) as an active rebel ought not have been counted by the 1870 Census (the first after the 14th Amendment's ratification) since his citizenship, not his personhood, would be in question.
Don't be surprised when the Census will eventually require citizens to produce a government-issued ID so that we can prevent non-existent census fraud the same way we can prevent non-existent voter fraud while accomplishing the same goal: stacking the federal government for a privileged minority.
6
Like everything else this administration wants, this will migrate more power to those that already have it. Wyoming voters already have four times the voting power of us in New York -and these clowns say that cities are already underrepresented?
5
I wonder what would happen if everyone who feels this question is illegal/invasive/discriminatory answers the question in the negative: this person is *not* a citizen.
It would certainly skew the results and provide historians with unusable information, but it would provide cover for all non-citizens (and anyone else) who are afraid to be counted.
Unless the question is removed, that's my plan.
4
Is the thrust of this Upshot piece that non-citizens should have a voice equal to citizens in our governance?
If it is (of course it is), then I suspect that while it might be a popular theme with the chorus here, that it would have very little purchase with most Americans.
And the Times continues its intentional distancing from the status of American "journal of record".
10
@Richard Luettgen
Um, no. More careful reading might be in order. Representation is supposed to be proportional to population, as the Constitution makes clear. Because the House plays a role in allocating certain resources, proportional representation is supposed to contribute to the fair allocation of those resources by population.
Counting non-citizens as part of the real population that will be served by government simply documents governing realities. It does not affect who gets to vote or have a "voice" in the choice of representatives, so this comment is disingenuous. Non-citizens can't vote, just as citizen-children can't vote--even though both categories of people place demands on infrastructure, for example.
My husband has been an honorable tax-paying legal resident of this country for almost thirty years. And he did have to register for the draft when he arrived. But he is not a citizen and is not eligible to vote. He does drive on the roads and inhabits physical space and, y'know, generally exists.
8
@C Wolfe
And the question on the census form doesn't deny anyone that status of "y'know, generally existing". But in the end, NOT having such intelligence DOES disproportionately favor states with large percentages of non-citizens, which in turn affords them greater representation in the House due to larger perceived populations of citizens, even if many might not be entitled to vote.
And that's a concern of many Americans. Maybe concern sharp enough to adjust by statute or constitutional amendment the basis for determining the composition of our elective bodies.
@Richard Luettgen
"Perceived" populations again implies that if we just don't count people, they don't really exist, and we don't have to factor them into decisions about how to allocate resources.
A representative of a district that has a larger proportion of non-voting citizens, including minors and legal residents, should be representing the actual needs of the district, as the constitutional language recognizes. And only those eligible to vote to get to decide who that representative is.
But we could just count a non-citizen as three-fifths, if you think that was and would be a preferable way to tally who was fully a person entitled to protection under the law.
Dividing power by state is a political maneuver, not something that helps Americans.
Should the 582,658 people in Wyoming have as much or more power than the 38,332,521? NO. Period. End of story.
State divisions rely on boundary lines, not human beings.
One person, one equal vote, regardless of what state your in should be the American way.
8
@Sarah Tragically, it is the US Constitution that prizes states over the federal government. States, per the Electoral College, not individual citizens choose the president. That is how Trump and GWB became president *against the wishes of the American people*.
Two senators per state, regardless of the state's population.
The Constitution is deeply, probably irrevocably, flawed. It is time to recognize the many weaknesses of that document and stop imagining it as holy writ.
4
This article misrepresents the citizenship question as a simple Yes/No choice. In fact, as proposed for 2020, it's multiple choice: Was this person born in the U.S.; born abroad to U.S. parents; born in a U.S. territory (such as Puerto Rico); or naturalized, and if so when? Or is this person a non-citizen?
This multiple-choice question is unreasonably complex and places an undue burden on respondents. It should be struck down for that reason alone.
4
@EveT
You underestimate our intelligence. We can answer multiple choice questions.
In fact, there should be another one. If the person is a non-citizen, the Census should ask if he or she is here as a lawful permanent resident, here on a temporary visa (and if so, what kind), or is here without authorization.
2
It already feels like people in cities are completely disenfranchised, at least in the state where I live. Cities are where the population is, but rural counties dominate our legislature and also our status in the US House of Representatives.
Obviously, this is designed to make that worse.
And also to expose immigrants. If you look at the citizenship question, it has multiple parts. If you are a citizen, you have to say if you were born here, whether you were naturalized, etc etc. Plus other questions about your status. It's set up, it appears, to make some citizens less than that, and to prepare the way for reversing the status of naturalized citizens. Not to mention that immigrants will expose themselves and render themselves vulnerable to be rounded up, if the Trumpsters wish to.
There is so much evilness coming out of the Trump White House that it's hard to know where to focus your opposition--but this is a terrible idea that will bear evil fruit, and must be stopped.
10
Hey, I'm a life-long Democrat...but I have to admit I just don't get it. Why is asking about citizenship a problem? Why does the possibility that someone somewhere might misunderstand what the question is about disqualify the question? If it is true that this leads to an undercount, that's not a function of the question, it's a function of the people who decide not to answer...
6
@DrD
Life-long Democrat, you're absolutely right, but it may just be that the Democratic Party as it exists now is not entirely the same as the one that you've supported your whole life.
As a general rule, both parties have carried out deportations and enforced immigration law during the 20th and 21st centuries. Traditionally, big labor was vehemently opposed to having high levels of immigration (especially low skilled immigration) on the grounds that it suppressed wages, and benefitted the capitalist class at the expense of workers. Leaders like Samuel Gompers, Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas (all socialists in one form or another) embodied this view. As recently as 10-15 years ago, senators Kirsten Gillebrand and Bernie Sanders also endorsed this stance. In more recent years though, we've seen support for maintaining high levels of low-skilled immigration coming not just from the Koch brothers and other major figures from corporate America, but from DNC leaders.
4
This is all part of the billionaire coup that put Trump into power. Thanks to Cambridge Analytica, an outrageous TV Personality who claimed to be a billionaire,the support of a TV network owned by a billionairee, the Russians and the Republican Party, they found the magic formula to get one of theirs elected -- including appealing to voters who are bitter about their place in life who are 100 % American but who didn't pay attenion is school and rich people and people who hope to be rich and benefit for the many benefits available to the rich.
This question on the census just pushes the US closer to an oligarchy like Russia. Eisenhower is probably turning over in his grave.
5
Eisenhower? Really?
Guy who stood against integrating the Army when he was in charge;
Did not conduct himself like a gentleman by having an affair with his female driver;
Directed coups in Iran and Guatemala;
Added under god to the pledge of allegiance;
That Eisenhower is probably not rolling over in his his grave
@Nycoolbreez No, we are talking about the Eisenhower who led Western democracies to victory over fascists in WWII, built the interstate highway system, taxed the corporations and the rich with a 90% tax rate (they still had their loopholes), and enabled a generation of veterans to go to college on the G.I. bill and make the largest middle class in history.
That Eisenhower.
This is one seriously difficult issue. My opinion is that citizen children (non-voters) really should be represented in the US Census, and are effectively represented by their voting parents. Retirement communities here in southern Arizona commonly vote for fiscal conservatives because they don't want to pay for educating local children now that their children are through with school and commonly live in other States. This is unpatriotic. Children ARE the future of the USA. It harms the country in the long run.
But I have a problem counting non-citizens because of the way Representatives such as Raul Grijalva, who represents dominantly Hispanic voters in southern Arizona, actively oppose any serious border control because they benefit politically from a large and growing Hispanic population, including illegal entrants. "Militarization of the border" is strongly opposed. This situation stinks and shows that this country will continue to have deeply divisive issues like illegal immigration as long as US borders are leaky sieves, and as long as Republicans can argue that Democrats benefit from large populations of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, this has so inflamed voters that we elected a truly appalling president. Don't let this happen again!
3
Damage is done.
Undocumented and even others with distrust of government won't respond to census.
There is no protection in this government, despite any reassurances.
Even in a democratic administration, immigrants and some populations are hard to count.
We know they live and breath and can estimate their numbers based on statistical sampling. But the some would say that's unconstitutional.
3
Seems unconstitutional to me - even the founders counted the non-citizenry as 3/5ths of a person - so it is pretty hard to argue now that the constitution also anticipated counting non-citizenry -now that slavery is over - as 0/5ths
6
All anyone has to do is look at how bad the gerrymandering already is. 50% of voters in Wisconsin vote Republican and they get a 65% edge in Congressmen? 3 million more voters vote for the Democrat in the presidential election and we are stuck with the Republican? And those are voters, not illegal aliens. The last thing this country needs is to further promote minority rule.
8
Easy solution to make this all much more fair: Eliminate the Electoral College.
8
"Experts don’t know how large of an undercount the 2020 citizenship question could produce...."
True, because they haven't looked. The Massachusetts experience would be instructive. The state conducts the only annual state census in the country and it includes a citizenship question on the questionnaire. Comparing the questionnaire to state administrative databases might give experts an idea of what undercount to anticipate, if any.
The citizenship question and Massachusetts is explained more here: www.BayStateBreakdown.com
1
We all need #BoycottTheCitizenshipQuestion movement on the #2020Census If enough people refuse to answer that one question, the question becomes irrelevant and everyone is still counted.
6
@Moppie I agree. I will not answer a citizenship question in the census.
2
The Republicans are motivated by a wish to have their 40% of the population dominate the remaining 60%. Period.
If you look at the white men who are constantly showing up in photos with Mitch McConnell (Thune, Barrasso, etc), you will notice that they hail from places like South Dakota (pop < 1 million) and Wyoming (pop. < 1/2 million). The Republican Party cares not for democracy, but for imposing their will on the American people, no matter the long term damage or costs. They must be resisted and removed.
12
I will not answer that question.
5
The problem with the citizenship census question is that it will discourage people from filling out the census--even legal US citizens. The census count is used to determine funding for hospitals, schools, and other local services for all of us. Not counting people who are here means less money to serve all of us. It's not as if they are going to leave because the didn't fill out the census. And your kid will be up against fewer dollars for their public education. Of course, the rich don't need to worry about that. The other problem is that 130,000 German citizens fled to America when Hitler expatriated them. Today, people are fleeing from the disasters of global climate change and global economic collapse from unregulated markets. They come to America looking for a better life and it makes America great to take them in. When we turn them away, it gives us license to ignore global climate change and the problems that are global in nature and some of our making. No citizenship question. Let's find out how many people are here. That's what the census is for.
10
If the question asks “Is this person a citizen?” And not “Is this person a citizen of the U.S.A” then everyone can answer in the affirmative as everyone is a citizen somewhere.
1
The constitution reads: “Representation and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers...”.
It would not be beyond the pale to ask how many Citizens (or permanent residents) are in a household because this way the government can determine who can vote and pay taxes.
Otherwise, should temporary guests be counted? How about guests who stay for 3 months? Visitors?
2
@C In NY, the intent when the Constitution was written was to count occupants, not citizens. As it happens, the same rural states that want only citizens counted now are the states that wanted all residents (occupants) counted back then. That is because they benefited from the large number of slaves (counted as 3/5 of a person) who obviously did not vote. Now that is not the case, they are all in favor of only counting citizens. If the only reason for the census was to apportion representation, your argument may have merit. Unfortunately, it is used for allocating resources, roads, sewers, forecasting future growth and many other very important uses for which a total head count is imperative.
1
If you were going to curtail it should count citizens AND legal immigrants. Those states with more people here legally should get more say in how government works. Legal immigrants are key to our work force and out country's prosperity. Saying they don't count when partitioning power, influence, and a say in how things are run in our country is nonsense.
1
A census counts a population in its entirety and is the reason Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem from Nazareth to be counted .
5
The only people threatened by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would be illegal aliens and, of course, politicians seeking illegal votes.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL aliens; i.e., foreigners in the US illegally. We cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. It is therefore utterly impossible for US taxpayers to support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners (aliens) to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally (i.e., illegal aliens) and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal aliens, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, abuse, etc. Many consider those who bring their children on arduous and dangerous journeys to enter the US illegally are guilty of child abuse.
Abolishing ICE makes sense only to advocates of open borders, a policy no nation will ever approve. We will lose the mid-terms and 2020 elections if open borders are part of the Democratic platform.
8
@Mon RayActually, I think there are a lot of employers in the US (from farmers to factory owners to parents needing child care) who love 'illegal' immigration because it provides lower cost, compliant, non-complaining workers. Also, the abolish ICE movement is small and mostly fed by fake internet trolls. Even those who legitimately call for ICE to be disbanded really just want it to be re-organized and differently managed. People need to understand the problem of employers wanting a big supply of undocumented workers and wanting to limit legal immigration.
4
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." —Section 2 of the 14th Amendment
At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as "illegal" immigration. If you made it to the shores of the US, you were considered a citizen and the reason behind the natural-born distinction for office holders.
The 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War and during reconstruction, mandated the census to count the "whole number of persons" (excepting those Indians on reservations). This same Amendment defined citizenship as well, clarifying birthright citizens versus immigrants—an important distinction to determine the legal status of the manumitted slaves. Despite this Amendment defining citizenship, the clause did not specifically define the census count to citizens.
This was not an oversight.
A true count of all persons within a jurisdiction is mandated by the Constitution. To argue otherwise, is political.
36
@Witness Protection I think your reading of the 14th amendment is a bit narrow. Remember that the constitution also allows the federal government the power to regulate immigration. If someone illegally enters the US, and is present in a state against the will of the US government, can that person really be considered a “whole person?” It’s a real question that is not cut and dry. That’s what is both great and troubling about the Constitution. It’s a document that has been interpreted to allow Dred Scott and Plessy as well as Brown and Miranda. I do believe you’ve articulated a good originalist point, but there are other interpretations that are political but also valid. That is the nature of the constitution. It is an inherently political document. If you want something that is moral and ethical you’ll have better luck with Plato. On a separate note, I almost spelled Dred Scott as Dredd Scott. I really liked the movie Dredd, and I’m still holding out hope for a sequel. I mean, if they make Mama Mia 2, why not another Judge Dredd to balance things out? “I am the law!” Classic.
12
@Witness Protection
full stop, everyone.
"...counting the whole number of persons in each state"
its in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment
1
To argue a country should not count its citizens is absurd. It this regard even what Trump says makes more sense. This “whole person” argument is lacking in common sense and it is disingenuous.
States and cities that support illegal immigrants should be willing to pay for their education, health care and other social support on their own. And take responsibility for abandoning the rule of law when it comes to immigration and bear the consequences. The constitution and the laws were certainly not intended to force lawful citizens to pay taxes to support “whole persons” who entered the country illegally.
There should be no issue that non-U.S. citizens should not count for certain purposes. But if that is not enough, the possibility of statehood for Puerto Rico will scare enough people off that the Dems will lose on this issue.
9
It's not just population reapportionment, it's the number of representatives in Congress. The 435 member cap means that my representation, a district of some 710K, gets less representation per person in the House than the state of Wyoming, about 560k. I get 4/5ths the representation in the House as Wyoming, and this doesn't count the power boost they get in the Senate as a state. If Wyoming's population was the largest a district would be, we would have around 580 members of Congress.
3
This is not a rhetorical question. Is the purpose of the census to determine congressional representation? If so, then shouldn't you have to be a U.S. citizen? Otherwise it would seem the government would be legitimizing undocumented status.
25
@Anonymous Yes, the purpose of the census is to determine representation of Persons in the government. It's purpose is not to determine representation of citizens. Representation accrues to Persons, not Citizens. Read the Declaration, and read the Constitution.
And by the way, We are the government. Meaning, We have 'legitimized undocumented status'. (Except, IMO that's a specious statement.)
If we wish to change the Constitution, then there are mechanisms to do so. In this case, a Constitutional Amendment is required. Nothing short will stand scrutiny from judicial review.
@Anonymous: "Is the purpose of the census to determine congressional representation? If so, then shouldn't you have to be a U.S. citizen?" Nope. Not according to the Constitution of the United States.
"Otherwise it would seem the government would be legitimizing undocumented status." - Some US citizens do not seem to be aware of the masses of legal immigrants in their country. These immigrants contribute very significantly to the society, through their expertise, labor, taxes, and positive relationships in their communities, and yet are neither US citizens nor undocumented. To take your word here, if such individuals have representation, as the Constitution mandates, the government is legitimizing undocumented status.
3
@Anonymous As many commenters have already pointed out, the Founding Fathers settled this issue when they wrote the Constitution. Slaves were not citizens. They were lowlier than legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, the Constitution required them to be included for the purpose of representation via the Three-Fifths Clause. (One slave equaled "three fifths" of a person.) Obviously, apportionment is based on number of residents, regardless of citizenship.
2
I'm an American citizen and spent a couple of years working
in a country which grudgingly tolerates immigrants (the UK).
I appreciated that my member of Parliament considered me a constituent even as a non-citizen and represented my interests.
I would have expected to be expelled from the country if I were not legally authorized to work and live there. This was stressful but didn't feel unfair; I knew what I was getting into by moving there.
On balance I think it's beneficial for the US to have a similar setup. Politicians should represent their constituents; if the country collectively wants to take harsh steps to expel noncitizens, that's its prerogative.
11
I thought a representative represents a district. A congressional district is based on population, not citizens of that district. After all the population of a district requires services, which are based on taxes. Services are not denied if someone is not a citizen. It took a long time to get rid of segregation, why are we looking to bring it back?
12
The Electoral College is already an unfair system for electing presidents, this issue of politicizing the Census by the Republicans will only make things worse. The Electoral College, similarly to the U.S. Senate, gives more power to rural states that have fewer people in them. According to the 2010 Census, California, has a population of 37 million, the most populous state, it contains more people than the 21 least populous states COMBINED. But California only has 2 Senators, compared to the 42 Senators in the rural (mostly Republican) red states. That's extremely unfair that two groups of the same size (37 million) are in a situation where one group (the red states) have literally 21 times as much representation in Congress. Also, if the size of the House was increased from 435 members, it could also be more representative as well. Finally, having the winner of the Presidential election by popular vote, would be more democratic than using the arcane, out-dated Electoral College, which was a compromise made with slave owning Southern states, to give them more power, in order to stay in the Union.
17
@Seymore Clearly Actually the Electoral College and counting slaves as 3/5 of a person was a compromise for the northern colonies who did not want the House of Representatives apportionment to be tilted towards the southern colonies. Furthermore, the census and ongoing distribution of services should be based on citizenship, not mere presence.
2
Both major parties seem to be focusing on immigration one way or the other as a way to simply increase the number of people likely to support their candidates in elections, but who is a citizen, and who gets a say in how the country is run, and who gets to live there goes to the heart of what makes a nation.
Back in 2012 I recall that young people in faraway countries, like the UK, Lebanon, Turkey, Germany, Nigeria and elsewhere argued that since decisions made by US leaders could have such a profound effect on their lives, that they should be allowed to have a say in US elections. Here in the US, I've seen protesters holding placards and chanting about how restricting voting rights to US citizens is racist and discriminatory towards non-citizens, including those living in faraway lands. Is this really where we are at?
16
The Census has a longstanding problem with 'hard to count' populations: groups who respond at low rates because they move around a lot or lack the resources to respond. These hard to count populations include people with disabilities, very low income households, and some ethnic minorities. The citizenship question only adds to that problem, because it scares off people who worry about sharing too much information with the feds: especially immigrants who may themselves be citizens or green card holders but who have undocumented people living in their households. For example, if one parent is undocumented, the spouse and children may go uncounted even if they are citizens.
This troubles social scientists because it leaves all kinds of wholes in demographic data. But this isn't just a statistical quibble. Hard to count populations are a constitutional problem. The Constitution is very clear about what the census is meant to do: it is to count every single person in the country, so that we can efficient tax and allocate. It doesn't say 'count only citizens' or 'count only those who are easy to find'. Census data is the foundation for every other decision we make at every level of government. By increasing the hard to count population, the Trump administration is risking a constitutional crisis.
14
Since there is a movement to reduce representation in the House by elimination of non-citizens from the count of people, we should also include the elimination of all citizens who are prevented from voting as called for in the 14th Amendment.
That would eliminate all those in prisons, disenfranchised, lacking paperwork, and otherwise barred from voting.
Put those figures in your map program and see what it does to the distribution of House Seats. I'll bet all of the "Red States" would suffer greatly. I can hear them screaming "NO!" as I type this.
4
There is a lot of ignorance expressed in this Comments section.
People need to read the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. And, the 14th Amendment.
The Declaration is clear: rights are associated 'unalienably' with Personhood.
The Constitution is also clear, that Representation derives from Personhood, not Citizenship.
Want to change these? Then argue for a Constitutional Amendment. Short of that, arguing that only Citizens be represented, or only legal residents, is un-American.
Millions of illegal/undocumented (choose your favorite descriptor) work in the US, and pay taxes, and especially pay FICA and Medicare taxes, from which they will never benefit, but which therefore benefit Citizens and some legal Residents.
36
@Albert Henning
Thanks for this!
3
If you can't win by the rules, change the rules.
We have seen it before when Mitch McConnell denied President Obama the Supreme Court seat that was his to fill.
It's way past time for Democrats to take off their gloves too.
31
@Anne It was Harry Reid who changed the filibuster rule about judges in order to ram through some judges nominated by President Obama. Mitch McConnell told him on the Senate floor that Democrats would regret the rule change; sooner than they thought, and now that regret hurts deeply.
1
No, it was Mitch Mc Connell, setting an unheard of precedent than a sitting President with at least a year more to go in his office, could not nominate a Supreme Court judge.
When the Congress flips Democratic, I hope the Democrats remember that, and do the same.
N ow that many/most/nearly all of us have computers, we should be able to have one woman/one vote. Not sure those representatives do such a great job of representing: they are always asking for $$ but never asking for my opinion!
2
The Constitution says free Persons, not Citizens. That should be sufficient to settle the argument for those individuals trying not to count people in a desperate attempt to move representatives to states more likely to be red than blue. Those same people have used this argument for decades as to why prison populations count as local even though the residents of them can't vote, so they can't complain now.
10
It may be a fair question to ask "if the country wants to know it's percentage of citizens" compared to total number of people living here.
Most countries I think would ask this and it would be answered with less controversy.
The opposition in the USA is driven out of an agenda to protect and serve those who have neither citizenship or valid Visas, Green Card, etc. Yet by some right seek all the benefits.That is unfortunate.
Travel through the US South, Chicago South Side, Michigan, etc, and there are US Citizens who are hurting, and can use the re-allocated dollars.
School districts, retired communities etc use federal funds allocated from this study.
11
One of my children worked as a census taker in the 2010 in Atlanta. He had to go out to residences where people had not responded using the paper census and try to get the forms filled out. There were many foreign-born people who simply refused to have anything to do with the US census. We need proper counts to show current and projected population needs for a number of reasons. To have an indication of citizenship vs visa/green card vs non-legal status would be good for the community.
Yes, it could cause an influx of ICE agents, it can also help with social services.
There is nothing wrong with knowing the truth
21
It's very simple. The Robber Barons and their "red" state operatives do not want anyone but white brethren to live in OUR United States of America so they want to take away funding for state/cities and other jurisdictions that protect legal immigrants.
Of course, they are the first ones to hire illegal aliens to do their dirty work but they want to enslave them - not give them any rights.
WE THE PEOPLE - the vast majority of American citizens do not agree. WE will call for a Special Census in 2020 after WE hire/elect Socially Conscious Women and men to help us create the kind of United States of America WE want to live in.
4
It's astounding, and dispiriting, how conservatives continue to run rings around liberals in "gaming the system".
The essence of the Republican approach to the Census, evidently, is to deny the humanity of the people who play such a crucial role in the American economy. They are fungible laborers -you can always get a new maid, or a new fruit picker, or a new janitor. So, demonstrably, these workers are only three-fifths of a real human; victims of the political machine's plutocratic urge.
Conservative selfishness -a bequest of the entirety of our history- truly diminishes America.
9
Might be a small revolt: but don't answer the question.
Just a few weeks after Independence Day --- and already GOP forgets why George III was rebuked.
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
"He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."
"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:"
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:" (tarriffs are taxes, and cutting taxes on select wealthy effectively adds tax burden to the less wealthy)
...should make us all think about what's next...
8
The most important sentence in the article is: “If the day comes that one of these suits succeeds in court, the 2020 count would provide the data to allow states to implement a redefinition of ‘the people,’ ” Taeku Lee, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an email. This legal analysis by Professor Lee once again, points out the total hypocrisy of Republicans and Conservative when it comes to Constitutional Law issues. They claim to be "originalists" who strictly adhere to the language contained only with in the four corners of the document, unless it goes against their favored policy, then they are against it. In regards to the Census, the Constitution says "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." There is nothing in the Constitution that excludes non-citizens or people who are below voting age, or who are not registered voters, or active voters, from being counted in the decennial Census. This attempt to include the citizenship question on the Census, which would probably result in undercounting non-citizens, and other groups listed previously, is simply a naked power grab by the GOP to further rig elections in their favor. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, restrictive voter ID laws, having fewer polling places in and reducing the hours for early voting is not enough for them.
9
It does make sense to find out exactly where we are with the population and to not have to rely on "good enough" numbers to get there. How people respond (or don't) to the question and what's done with the information afterwards are separate issues. I'll be interested to see where the courts come down on this question.
6
Would this mean that the Republican advantage gained by gerrymandering in some states would be lessened?
1
@Bill Harshaw Officially lessened, yes. In reality quite the reverse. Fewer Dems to have to gerrymander against....
1
Hi Conservatives. I agree with your argument that all votes should be weighted equally, but I doubt you are being sincere. As a token of your good faith, let's start by electing the President by popular vote. Wait, where did all the conservatives go?
142
@KM I think they went outside for a laugh. We have an Electoral College in place to avoid the very notion of election by popular vote.
It's been this way for a long time as well, by design.
The republic would break apart quickly if the president was only elected by the populations of a few large states.
10
@Norville T Johnson
your last sentence is nonsense
'a few large states' - who are you trying to scare ?
do you really mean 'large' or urban or progressive or northeast or w coast or minority controlled ?
presently, a few states award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote; the rest award all the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, even if the margin is 51% to 49% ...
do you think that's fair ? ... changing this would not require a constitutional amendment, just a campaign to educate people ... Or maybe you like the fact that a minority of people elect a president - look what it got us !
@KM
I agree with your argument that all votes should be weighted equally,
________
The Electoral College is completely off-topic. But, if you want to go about amending the Constitution, there's a clear mechanism for doing so. Get about it--if you can. This is a no-whine zone.
1
I thought the law in this country still clearly states that you can't vote in our elections if you're not a citizen. It would seem only logical (to myself and most first graders), that voting districts should be based on who can legally vote.
50
@ERA, the article is about the Census. It is not about voting and citizenship. The Constitution is specific about the Census, and its purpose is to count 'free Persons'. Originally, it also counted indentured servants. It counted slaves as 3/5s of a Person, for purposes of representation in the government. And it did not count Native Americans, unless they were taxed/paid tax. Representation therefore derives, not from citizenship, but from the simple presence of a person. All people -- citizen or not, voter or not -- are to be represented in the government. There is no ambiguity. Scalia, were he alive, would have to concur based on the theory of originalism.
Article 14, Section 2 (the 14th Amendment) preserves this construction. It also defines citizenship.
All this argument is moot. The Constitution could not be clearer.
58
@Albert Henning Where were you when this article was being written?
@Albert Henning Quite the contrary: if a state hypothetically has half of its residents being non-citizens, each citizen's votes will count twice as much as citizens in states that don't encourage illegals to settle there.
Well, on one level it makes sense to only count citizens for political representation. If you are not here legally, why would anyone care who you want to represent you in Congress? You are not entitled to vote anyway. And why would any nation allow citizens of a foreign country to participate in its electoral process? On the other hand, there are several federal mandates forcing state and local governments to provide certain services, even to people who are breaking the law by their mere presence in the country. So there would need to be some mechanism to ensure State and local governments receive their appropriate share of federal funding to comply with said mandates.
11
those mandates need to be abolished
3
1. The census is clearly defined in the constitution as a body count of “free” people- so it includes ALL people.
2. Please differentiate between the concept of illegal migrants and those who are here legally but may not be citizens. Neither group is allowed to vote in state and national elections but one may be on the path to citizenship.
3. I hope you are just as passionate about gerrymandering. Elected officials are not chosen based on your vote, but on local party boss’ preference supported by simple arithmetic. Your vote is effectively a formality.
4
@Angelica I don't know that I'd use the word "passionate" to describe my opinions about census questions. I was simply saying it's not entirely illogical to count only citizens when determining how many representatives a state gets, since nations don't normally allow foreigners to vote or be represented in government. So, from that perspective, it makes sense to get an accurate number of ALL people living in an area (to efficiently plan for infrastructure, housing, traffic management, etc.), but to also to get an accurate number of how many of those people are actually citizens. As for gerrymandering, that is definitely anti-democratic, and needs to be stopped. I guess you could say I'm passionate about that.
The Census gets my name and age; my address and my weight.
I'll tell 'em I'm retired and I do not have a mate.
If they want anymore than that I'm gonna slam the door;
I don't like nosy parkers who do nothing else but schnorr.
5
Appeals Courts and SCOTUS news , plus this census news, must make those among who sat home among progressives, liberals and moderate Dems in the 2016 election, feel bloddy awful, and worse if they have children and grankids
2
I'm sure the citizens of Iowa would like its number of representatives in the House to be based on the population of hogs within their state.
7
If I am asked to answer this question, I will leave it blank.
2
@Bevan Davies
Which means the census bureau will have to go to the trouble of bumping your name, address against eVerify. Make work.
1
The votes in small states are already worth more than those in large states. For example, in 2016, one vote, in Montana, was worth 54 votes in California, thanks to the electoral college. California should have more Senators, Montana, fewer, based on population. Eliminate the un-American, antiquated, abusive, electoral college. One citizen, one vote. I will not answer this question. Who will join me?
25
that's exactly what we need to find out. where are the citizens
@ChesBay Hopefully no one. This a terrible idea. Larger states like California are more than fairly represented in the House with 53 representatives. In fact they have more representation then the bottom 20 states combined !!
Aren't they represented enough?
Do you really want the smaller states to become politically invisible.
Have you thought this through ?
2
@ChesBay Perhaps if all of the liberals refuse to answer the question, California and New York will end up with Montana's 3 electoral votes!
1
Conservatives should be careful what they ask for. If you stack the Supreme Court with originalists, then certainly the Court will strike down the citizenship question as the census was intended to count every person residing in the US, regardless of citizenship. Readers should remember that this privileged Southern slave holding states and gave them more representation in Congress.
There is also a growing movement in favor of reforming our electoral system. Stripping urban areas of more power will only strengthen the sentiments of city dwellers that we are being robbed of power. Actions like this will only help those who look to eliminate the electoral college and institute the more democratic system whereby Presidential elections are determined by popular vote.
10
@historyprof
Your opinion is pretty far removed from reality. The Constitution requires that everyone present be counted, and the census is going to do so.
If it is legal to ask your race and whether you are Hispanic or non-Hispanic, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone on the SCOTUS that it is illegal to ask if they are citizens. People who say they are not citizens are still going to be counted and their numbers will be included in the enumeration of state in which they reside.
1
Let's stop calling this a representative democracy. I don't know what this country is anymore, but I know for certain that we no longer live in a representative democracy.
5
In general the same people who insist on the original intent of the framers of the constitution yet twist the language of the Second Amendment to justify their view that their should be no restrictions on guns, are back to add language to various amendments to increase their power and weaken the concept of democracy.
14
Do not underestimate the fact that many American citizens who object to this change in the Census will either not respond at all to the Census or will respond in ways that don't reflect their true status. Two of the three Congress officeholders who now represent me in DC do not reflect my views and could care less what I think or want. My state office holders do not reflect my views or wishes either. What do voters and Census responder like me have to lose by giving a protest response? I have no representation now--despite the fact that I vote in every election--and that I completed the last Census form honestly. I most likely will leave a question about my citizenship blank. The last few years have shown me I have nothing to lose by resisting and protesting.
10
Who would answer such a question honestly? And I think the constitution requires counting all residents, not just citizens. Now I would like it to be just citizens, but that is not happening.
1
Why should states that disregard the law, or in some cases encourage its violation, be rewarded with extra Congressional representation?
23
@Charles all of your language is pejorative and false. 'Disregard the law' means what, exactly? 'Encourage its violation'? 'Rewarded'? 'Extra'?
This entire discussion is moot. The Constitution is clear on the matter of Representation. It derives from Personhood, not Citizenship. As a consequence, there can be nothing 'extra', no 'reward'. And your coupling of 'reward' and 'extra', to your subjective judgement of behavior, is a non sequitur.
3
Those cities/towns with illegal immigrant Sanctuary laws may lose out, big time. No more free lunch.
29
Counting U.S. citizens is essential to a census. Why should illegal aliens count more. This is ridiculous to not collect the proper numbers. Not in this country legally? too bad.
30
@maja respectfully, people who are counted by the census are not divided into only U.S. citizens and those who are here without legal documents. There are quite a number of people residing in the country perfectly legally, who pay taxes and are law abiding but who are not citizens. Why should they not be counted, too?
5
Perhaps you need a thorough review of the constitution- censuses is a body count of ALL citizens.
2
@Proudly Naturalized
They will all be counted.
What cities will still tout their 'sanctuary" status when they will be poorer, less politically potent and jut not as attractive to illegals?
Illegals will assess, correctly, that these cities are a last resort.
Legal citizens will assess whether harboring them makes sense.
13
Well, then, we’ll just have to tell people to take a page out of trump’s playbook and - “LIE”!
8
Democrats have packed all their districts with illegal immigrants. They are disenfranchising actual American citizen’s votes and asking for more tax dollars from Washington, while increasing representation.
11
The Constitution calls for all persons to be counted, and the total count to be used to apportion Congress. Democrats are hypothesizing that 15% of non-citizens will decline to respond to the census, resulting in an undercount that will result in CA, NY losing one House seat each and Wyoming and Colorado each gaining one seat.
California and NY will gerrymander to eliminate two Republicans, the Wyoming add will probably be a Republican. The Colorado delegation is currently four Republicans and three Democrats, so even if the new seat is Republican, the hypothetical under count does not shift the balance in Congress.
The US population is 13.2% foreign born [20 million], some of whom are naturalized citizens. During the last decade, 7.4 million foreign born residents have been naturalized, which means that there are fewer than 12 million non citizens in the country, so Democrats are concerned about an undercount of, maybe, 1.8 million residents of the 11 million illegal aliens in the country.
All of the other hypotheticals will not result in movements of House seats between the states.
Much ado about nothing.
5
This all seems so stupid. America does not exist other than on paper and the laws that define it. Everything as far as it is concerned with should reflect those. Forget this sappy humanism when it comes to running the government of The United States of American. One cannot serve two masters. Trying to is a fool’s errand that will inevitably revert us back into apes where this problem doesn’t exist. Perhaps as it should be.
2
@John Doe "two masters" - who are you thinking of?
2
Maybe we should go back to counting only land-owning white males of pure bloodlines.
20
Our current system has a interesting similarity and difference to the 3/5 Compromise in the Constitution. Similarity, Slave owners had greater political power since slaves were counted when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Difference, Slave states had to pay taxes based on their population, thereby making slave state taxes higher. States with large immigrant communities receive massive assistance since many immigrants live in poverty. So this is better than the 3/5 Compromise for states like New York. We get more political power through apportionment of House seats and we get additional financial assistance.
2
@Michael Green border states also receive the same 'benefits' you tout. AZ, TX, NM, LA, FL in particular. It is not simply blue states who 'benefit'.
I place 'benefit' in quotes, because that word itself is a subjective value judgement. If one asks residents of southern AZ whether their increased Federal representation, and Federal monies, is a benefit, my sense is they would say, what representation?, and, what monies?
The Constitution says in multiple places, that Representation derives from Personhood, not Citizenship. The Declaration states similarly. Anyone wanting to grant Representation only to Citizens, contravenes our founding documents, fundamentally.
One could easily, therefore, call the citizenship question proposed for the upcoming census, un-American.
2
"Republicans officials, red states and conservatives behind a series of recent court cases have argued that districts historically allotted based on total population unfairly favor states and big cities"
Really?
You cite this argument unexamined?
Because, in almost every way, the opposite is obviously true.
Otherwise how to explain that both people living in North Dakota have the same number of Senators as the bajillions living in New York?
All the power advantage goes the little, the isolated, the grumpily conservative. And now they want more?
15
@oogada Actually the people of North Dakota have 1 representative in the House while California has 53. You want California to have more ?
3
@oogada If you bothered to read the article you would see it is referring entirely to the House.
1
@skeptic
Ooh, yeah. I read that.
The House is as close as we get to one man, one vote in government. You'd undo that?
Whatever the House does, the Senate is where the politics lie, where the final bill takes shape.
Article 1 of the Constitution
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
"whole number of free persons", not "citizens." Such a change would require an amendment.
4
For congressional allocation purposes, maybe the question should be more along the lines of "are you a registered voter?".
Such a change would further motivate every state to register voters.
2
I think only way citizens of NY and California are going to have a voice in future in the oncoming climate is to boycott any item or service manufatured in or by an entity controlled by residents of a house district having a republican representative.
5
@Scott
That will definitely reduce air pollution in NYC, because there will be no fuel for your vehicles.
3
Most American citizens would agree that including illegal immigrants in ANY apportionment of federal funds is contrary to common sense. Likewise, most Americans would agree that including legal non-residents and green card holders in the census is perfectly fine. We do not want off the books, law breaking illegal aliens included in the census or distribution of federal funds. They broke American law coming here, and deserve no recognition by the federal government or actual citizens.
21
I don't like it-- illegal migrants are being counted by the Census Bureau (the census uses more than the mailed questionnaire when counting people) and then US states are distributed electoral votes and congressional representation based on this inflated figure of nonvoters? This is not right. This is not a partisan issue, Democratic states like New York and California would stand to lose seats, while GOP states like Arizona, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia might lose seats as well.
7
Immigrants, legal or illegal, with few exceptions, pay taxes. I thought "taxation with representation" was one of the foundations of the United States.
11
@Gustav Aschenbach They do? Sure they pay sales taxes and property taxes, but I bet many work for cash and don't pay income or employment taxes, at least somewhat.
18
Sources?
4
@vulcanalex please refer to the ongoing argument between the US government, and the government of Mexico, regarding FICA and Medicare withholdings from Mexican nationals working in the US: monies which these workers will never receive, and which therefore benefit those who do draw Medicare and SocSec benefits. The data shows that the cash economy is a lot less than you suppose, compared to the recorded economy (meaning, workers who file tax returns, included undocumented workers).
1
Populous states and cities should not defy federal border control laws and regulations. None of us will be paid a living wage until all of us are. That means that no one here should be here illegally, and no one living here should have a job if they are here illegally. This is the basics of having a country 101.
12
If only citizens get representation, then green card holders, permanent residents and undocumented immigrants shouldn't have to pay any taxes (sales tax, property tax, income tax, car tax, hotel tax, etc) as that would be taxation without representation, which is what the Founding Fathers were against, right?!?
6
@David So you'd be happy if the question was rephrased to allow for the identification of green card holders and permanent residents?
2
Why not hang around the airports and count foreign tourists? That makes as much sense as counting people who are not citizens.
6
Isn't it rich that the New York Times implicitly campaigns in this piece for representation for illegal aliens? There is absolutely no reason that my vote or the vote of any other citizen should be diluted by including people who should not be in the country in the count for apportionment of representatives? These non-citizens would still be counted by the census, just not included in the apportionment of representatives.
19
@Ron Wilson
Actually, they would still be included in the apportionment, as the Constitution requires. Democrats assume that 1.9 million illegal aliens will not respond to the survey, which means that California and NY will each lose a representative in the House.
Foreign born naturalized citizens are going to respond to the survey. Legal aliens, those with valid visas will respond, although it is possible some tourists will be missed. Fifteen present of non citizens, the number plucked out of the air by the people suing amounts to 1.9 million individuals. If the 15% is anywhere near the correct number, it would result in 1.9 people who are present in the country declining to answer the census questionnaire, and an overwhelming majority would be illegal aliens.
Leftists love to expand victim classes. So they are asserting that 15% of non citizens will be missed in the count. It makes a much more attractive argument than that 18% of illegal aliens will be missed in the count.
It's time to only count citizens when determining a state's allocated resources. This will give states an incentive to deport their illegal residents -- or make life so tough for them that they deport themselves.
21
Fine, but lose all those taxes from non-citizens. Does the phrase “no taxation without representation” sound familiar. If immigrants don’t have representation, why should they pay taxes?
I really hope that the citizenshs and that the lawsuits succeed. Non-citizens should have exactly zero representation in Congress.
14
So I can pay exactly zero taxes, as a permanent resident?
1
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
The Constitution says "persons," not "citizens" and excluded Indians because they were not taxed. most, if not all, residents of a state pay tax (except of course the richest residents) whether they are citizens, legal residents or non-legal residents. the purpose of the census is for apportionment of representation based on population, not citizens. the inclusion of the citizenship question just proves to me that the purpose and goal of the Republican Party and its members, is to bring down the very Constitution they swore to uphold and certainly to destroy the Republic, which they claim to stand for. Traitors all. my suggestion is that NO ONE should answer that question. just leave it blank or scratch it out, or write "under protest." there is nothing in the Constitution or the Census requirements that justifies asking such a question.
14
In the end, this is just another strategy to decrease the influence of the blue states and disproportionately increase the influence of the religious right wing, anti-science, white supremacists.
There is a reason that the liberal states contribute more to the economy. Diversity and freedom of thought and expression leads to creativity and, creativity leads to economic prosperity for all. We need to fight the problems of this century instead of waging religious, gender, science and race wars and, regressing society back to the Middle Ages.
35
@NB It sounds like you're saying that Red State's citizens are all "religious right wing, anti-science, white supremacists." Also, that they not creative and contribute nothing to society. That's a pretty appalling generalization, just because they do not agree with you! It's right up there with Hillary's "deplorables" and look what saying this accomplished.
Who wants people with such narrow minds to have more influence? Your comments are beyond insulting.
2
The only people threatened by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would be illegal aliens and, of course, politicians seeking illegal votes.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL aliens; i.e., foreigners in the US illegally. We cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. It is therefore utterly impossible for US taxpayers to support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners (aliens) to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally (i.e., illegal aliens) and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal aliens, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, abuse, etc. Many consider those who bring their children on arduous and dangerous journeys to enter the US illegally are guilty of child abuse.
Abolishing ICE makes sense only to advocates of open borders, a policy no nation will ever approve. We will lose the mid-terms and 2020 elections if open borders are part of the Democratic platform.
30
@Mon Ray - You are unfortunately mistaken about the U.S. welcoming Legal immigrants now. The current administration is reducing legal immigration by at least 50%, eliminating the ability of green card holders and naturalized citizens to bring in family, seeking to deport legal immigrants who request a new status - like applying for a green card or citizen - and are denied for whatever reason, examining the applications of naturalized citizens for any flaws that would allow de-naturalization and then deportation - there are probably things I have missed here. So no - the statement "most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants" is not true for most supporters of the current President.
1
Wow.... and all this time I thought it was the individual citizens voice that mattered, not the town or city one happened to live in.
1
The purpose of the census is to get a fair count of people in our country. Any attempt to thwart the fairness of that count is unconstitutional and subversive to the American people. Enemies foreign and domestic, never was more relevant.
4
Dear NYT:
This strikes me as an irresponsible "what if" story intended to whip up more partisan fury.
Why not focus on the underlying issues presented, instead of political outcomes? This analysis requires a balancing of equities -- equal voting rights for citizens v. the danger of under counting illegal immigrants, which could arguably impact the disbursement of federal aid -- but these arguments are not carefully examined. Too bad.
5
The mission of the census is to count people. Just count and shut up. I have no problem with the census asking the gender and age of those whom they count. But that's it.
5
I thought the census was supposed to count every person actually present in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. All this question will do is further Trump's war on the immigration of people he doesn't like. What do you want to bet that assuming people are foolish enough to answer this question, illegal residents from primarily white countries will not be bothered, while persons of color coming in will be harassed and deported.?
Meanwhile Trump's loyal base will think he's doing the right thing, and will not understand that this is part of an ongoing coup of all right forces. I have watched with dismay since the time of Ronald Reagan as people continually voted against their own interests, persuaded by dog-whistle racism, and bought the proposition that all taxes are bad and that somehow we can have a civilized country without paying the bill. Welcome to Trump's America.
26
@Georgia Lockwood
"I thought the census was supposed to count every person actually present in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status."
Nothing stops people from filling in the Census form, whether they are citizens or not, and be counted.
Only in the US is asking about citizenship a source of controversy - Canada; the UK; Germany; France - indeed most of Europe ask this very basic and simple question.
Silly season seems to be starting early for liberal conspiracy theorists.
42
@SteveRR
Of the nations you mentioned, only in the U.S. are individual states subjected to a constant barrage of sneak attacks by a single party to weaken their rivals.
Yes, motive makes a difference.
7
@SteveRR
None of those countries have the equivalent of our Electoral College, where votes of people from sparsely populated states count more than those from densely populated states. I'd also guess none of those countries have the equivalent of our Senate as well, where jurisdictions with drastically different populations and corresponding shares of the national economy get a fixed number of representatives. This is why the citizenship question matters.
2
@SteveRR, You're not kidding. And some people think they're Henry David Thoreau by resisting to answer the census.
2
Since funds are allocated according to the census, it certainly makes sense that we don't count illegal aliens. As things stand today, states and cities receive money for not enforcing laws against illegal aliens.
We shouldn't be incentivizing the breaking of laws with rewards of additional federal funding.
The reason that there are so many illegal aliens is because of unscrupulous employers who offer low wages, often illegal wages and illegal working conditions to illegal aliens.
A part of the 1986 Regan illegal alien amnesty was the creation of the eVerify system. This is a database that can be checked by honest employers to ensure that they are not hiring illegal aliens.
Unfortunately, the use of eVerify is not mandated by a law with very large fines and even jail time. Thus, we have these unscrupulous employers who take advantage of workers while receiving large profits.
States like my state of New York could mandate eVerify, but they choose to keep in place a system encouraging the hiring of illegal aliens over Americans and legal immigrants.
The last thing we should be doing is rewarding the politicians of New York State with additional funds because they refuse to pass laws enforcing eVerify and protecting American jobs for those who live here legally.
17
@David MD
The Justice Department under Obama/Holder intentionally undermined enforcement of employer sanctions for employing aliens not entitled to work in the US.
Holder sued employers for racial profiling who declined to hire workers that eVerify had identified, erroneously, as ineligible to work. Granted, it was a problem for those workers, but arguably, their beef was with the federal government for operating a defective system, not with the employer attempting to comply with federal law.
As a consequence, if an employer accepts obviously fake documentation when an employee fraudulently signs an I-9, he cannot be prosecuted or even fined if eVerify deems the individual ineligible.
If an employer neglects to collect required documentation to be retained with the I-9 or loses it, it is a technical violation and subjects the employer to a minor fine [which is assessed whether the worker is legal or not.]
In order to criminally indict an employer, you would need to have someone testify that not only did the documentation look fake, that the employer knew it was fake or participated in creating it. It is notoriously difficult to prove what was in someone's mind absent testimony of another participant in the criminal enterprise, which is why we never hear about an employer going to jail.
2
eVerify is a boondoggle that is estimated to cost billions of dollars to implement on a national basis. As a small business owner, I don't need or want that extra level of bureaucratic hoopla to navigate. If a business is conscientious about filling out the I-9 paperwork, that should be sufficient.
Ironically the people I know who abuse the process by hiring people illegally and paying them under the table are mostly right wing conservatives who want to game the system and avoid paying payroll taxes; making a profit off their backs while leaving those workers with little to no recourse in the event of wage theft or injury and undercutting legitimate businesses who try to operate fairly.
The question, if permitted to be printed on the census,
could elicit a terrible, or even rude, reply.
Be careful what you ask for Wilbur; you may get more than what you bargained for!
I do not want non-citizens counted in the census. That gives sanctuary cities and states which knowingly and willing encourage illegal aliens to live in them will be allocated more federal funds, thus rewarding law breaking and the abetting of law breaking. Instead, they should be punished for sanctioning law breaking, and forced to come up with their own money to replace the federal funds they would have received if they did not break federal immigration law.
24
@paul It's not only about people here without document. We have thousands of people here legally but not citizens--it's who we are. They drive on the roads, send their kids to school, use medical services, etc. By separating them out on a census count, you overlook them, to great detriment to local governments.
11
@paul what you 'want' is un-American. The Declaration is clear: all men (all Persons, really) are created equal. And the Constitution is still clearer: in multiple places, Representation is stated to derive from Personhood, not Citizenship.
I would argue, American Exceptionalism derives from this fundamental concept. To argue for Representation deriving only from Citizenship, is to argue against American Exceptionalism.
3
Perhaps if the reader who don't understand this issue would actually read the US Constitution, they would understand the issue. Basically the South started with more members in the House than their number of Citizens allowed because they got to count their slaves. Trump won even though Clinton got won the popular vote because the former Confederacy gets more votes per population in the Electoral College than than the non-slave states do.
Sorry it may hurt New York, in my humble opinion undocumented (illegal) immigrants should not be counted in the census. Only folks that are here legally.
22
The problem with the argument that undocumented will identify for a census overlook the fact that very few actually do that. Most try to keep their head down. It's very likely that population is under reported in areas where there are large numbers of undocumented. Unfortunately, those in favor of the citizenship question have probably convinced themselves of the opposite.
1
@Butch
They should be counted, and they should indicate that they are not citizens. They should be counted in the allocation of House seats.
When complaints are made that someone is not complying with voting laws, the data should be available to demonstrate that if a particular group did not turn out to vote, that it is likely that the hypothetical statistical anomaly reflects non citizens not voting.
The left makes disparate consequences arguments about their hypothetical grievances. More data can only help establish accuracy.
Don't ask us to take this White House at their word when they say the citizenship question is needed in order to "better enable the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act." After all, Trump told us that Comey was fired because he treated the Clinton campaign badly.
This white nationalist White House has already decimated the ability of the federal government to monitor or enforce civil rights and voting rights laws. Unjustified racist Trump Republican efforts to undo the votes of brown people are goose stepping across the country: gerrymandering, ID laws, inadequate voting stations, and the like.
Isn't the Constitution clear on this? It doesn't mention citizenship. The count, it tells us, should be based on the people living in the district.
5
Even slaveowners counted their slaves -- if at a discount (as 3/5 of a person)! There are reasons, even beyond apportioning seats, why it is crucial for lawmakers and governmental organizations to know the facts about the places they serve -- how many actual people will need clean water; efficient sewage; transportation; electricity; ...and on and on. There is no legal or moral basis for this blatant attempt to rewrite the Constitution to suit Trump.
4
"The primary effect would be to dilute the power of the most populous states and, within states, the cities where immigrants are densely clustered. Other American political institutions like the Senate and Electoral College systematically disadvantage large urban areas relative to rural ones. Political maps redefined to count only citizens, or voting-age citizens, would push that dynamic further."
Taxation without representation was the rallying cry of the American Revolution. We need equal representation and taxation. The Electoral College has to go and Senatorial representation should be based on population.
The presumption that an actual enumeration in the decennial census is more accurate than a statistical sampling in the ACS is suspect.
The margin of error in sampling data can be significantly smaller than that of a hard count. In fact, statisticians prefer the former.
Since the Census is used to apportion political power and money, only Citizens should be counted. Counting non-citizens games the system for a political purpose at odds with the view of the author of this article and is ethically dubious. If one really wants to game the system, and non-Citizens are allowed to be counted then simply invite hordes of non-Citizens just prior to the Census, have them complete the questionnaire(s) to be counted and then send them home. Mission accomplished. The State so doing gains both political power and money by so gaming the system.
8
@Toni
Ethically dubious? What if your spouse has a green card, a social security number, works full time, and pays taxes? And, needless to say, is affected by decisions made by people in government?
5
There should be two counts. The first count should tally all persons in a district regardless of citizenship. The second count should tally only citizens. The first tally - that of all persons - should be used for informational purposes only. The second tally - that of citizens - should be used to apportion congressional seats and federal aid to states and localities. If non-citizens are counted to apportion congressional seats, then they should be allowed to vote in congressional elections. Do you want non-citizens voting in our congressional elections?
8
The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren inside and outside OUR U. S. Government are trying to manipulate OUR systems in their favor and put the rest of we "peons" into our place in their minds. They are demented.
Just as there is no "settled law" because the Supreme Court can change it overnight, there is no judicial/executive/cabinet/legislative action that cannot be reversed.
If the Robber Barons follow through on manipulating OUR U.S. Census WE THE PEOPLE will demand a "Special Census" immediately after we replace the thieves with Socially Conscious Women and men this November and in 2020.
THIS WILL NOT STAND IN AMERICA. Not now. Not ever.
5
It's called Democratic Governance, which protects 99% of us from the Robber Barons IF we each exercise our right to vote and speak out.
2
There are two conflicting arguments.
One says that since the census determines the number of representatives each state has in Congress (and the Electoral College) and since representatives are elected only by citizens, then the number of citizens ought to be determinative.
The other says that, since members of Congress represent all residents of their state, and since all residents have, in theory, the same interests whether or not they are voters, the number of residents should be determinative.
Given the vast number of US citizens who choose not to vote, but are still entitled to representation in Congress, my sympathy lies with the second argument.
6
The census to me is about how many people are living in this country and the location where they live. So, the citizen question, while interesting ,is not nessesary to determine population density. Accurate population density is very important to know because of environmental concerns and infrastructure needs. It also shows how this population is moving around this country and settling down .
5
@Gail
By asking "is this person a citizen" after the person has been counted, it would seem an easy task to determine both the total population and the number of legal citizens.
1
That only citizens should be counted for apportionment is a specious argument that ignores the Constitution and U.S. history. Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution states that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". Slaves and American Indians living among Whites and subject to taxation were explicitly recognized as groups who should be enumerated but neither group was eligible for citizenship. Clearly, the Constitution mandates the enumeration of these persons for apportionment. This language is later modified by the 14th and 19th amendments but these amendments pertain to voting rights and not to the enumeration of persons for the purpose of apportionment . In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly excludes Indians not taxed but allows for a count of Indians taxed who were still not recognized as citizens. If the court wishes to adhere to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, the inevitable conclusion is that non-citizens should be enumerated for apportionment even though they are ineligible to vote,
34
This will be settled by the courts. Currently, legal challenges are forcing release of information that appears to show that Commerce Secretary Ross lied to Congress when he said the decision to add the question originated with professionals within the Census Bureau. Emails appear to show that the request to Ross came from the White House, so it was a political strategy, not a professional recommendation.
6
Thoughts:
-Areas with more non-citizens get more representatives but only citizens vote so their vote is worth more than one in a region with fewer non-citizens. Sounds unconstitutional.
-Assumption is that the voting citizens will choose representatives that represent the non-citizens wishes. This may or may not be true.
-There is political gain of more representatives for cities encouraging illegal migrants to move there and offering sanctuary status.
21
If a violation of “one person, one vote” were inconsistent with the Constitution, then the electoral college which is enshrined within that same document would not exist. My vote in rural WV already counts more than yours in NY, but it also counts less in some ways than a vote in more populous Ohio, where in a presidential election the state could swing either way. My vote as a fairly liberal Democrat in a very red state, at least in the post-Gore years, is effectively pointless in any national election. That’s the nature of any winner-takes-all system within a republic (as opposed to a true democracy).
1
The census should be a total accounting of all people who are living in the Us, regardless if they are citizens or not. Why/ Because, these use public services, earn income, spend money, use the infrastructure (drive, use public transport, attend school/college). By restricting the head count to only include citizens, or voting age citizens, it underestimates expenditures across the board.
While the GOP, and Trump, are trying to come up ways with to fix a soaring deficit, they created with irresponsible tax cuts, defining what counting what a "person" is, is not the answer. There was a time, that a "person" was a male voter over 21, as what was allowed to vote. Women could not. African-American Males were considered 3/5 of a person. This all changed with the 14th, 19th and the 26th Amendments.
If the GOP, and Trump, go ahead and use the census to dilute the vote, they will be in violation of the Constitution. They also will be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. Effectively, doing gerrymandering on a national scale. And if they take this further to define, what a "citizen" truly is, they could disenfranchise citizens.
In Ancient Rome a vast majority of the population, were not citizens. Only a minority had voting rights. This seems to be the ultimate intent of Trump, and the GOP, to make it so, that the minority maintains rule over the nation.
Like, Rome, the US, is skidding down the road to "Republic in name only".
13
If a non citizen cannot vote then why should they be counted among those to be represented in the house or electoral college?
56
@babaganoush because they pay taxes and contribute to social services. Many states have no income tax, so it's collected through taxes on goods and services which everyone pays.
5
The short answer to your question is that the Constitution mandates it. To do otherwise would likely require a Constitutional amendment. However, to accurately enumerate citizens would present logistical nightmare because the Census Bureau would have to ascertain and verify the citizenship status of each person it enumerates. Otherwise, it would be possible to wage an ad hoc campaign that encouraged non-citizens to identify as citizens for the purpose of swaying the apportionment process. This would undoubtedly increase the cost of the census by billions of dollars.
3
@babaganoush What about children? The elderly, particularly with dementia? The handicapped? They should be represented. This is not an easy question.
Can't the states decide whether or not to ask the citizenship question? Census takers could be instructed to ignore the question.
Another tactic is to inform all people to refuse to answer the question. Statistically the question would be invalid if more than 50% of the households had missing data or refused to answer.
3
@cyclist
The Census is mandated by the US Constitution, and therefore a federal issue. States have no power to control how the Census is written or performed.
https://www.census.gov
Russian-Republicans have suppressing and rigging American votes and elections full-time since 2000 when they ripped off the Presidency and the Supreme Court through Jeb's illegal purging of the Florida central voter file in 1999 and refusing to count all the Florida votes.
In 2008 and 2012, we got a slight reprieve from tyranny of right-wing minority, but now their voter suppression and political hijacking tactics are 'new and improved' to kill democracy at all costs.
Decent Americans don't vote Republican because Republicans son't subscribe to democracy or representative government.
The USA is in a middle of Republican coup d'etat.
Resist, register, donate and vote.
https://www.voterparticipation.org/support-our-work/donate-to-vpc/
D for democracy; R for Russian-Republican tyranny of the radical, Randian, religious, right-wing, regressive minority.
102
@Socrates
Democrats are in denial. They believe that they are the majority because they fail to recognize the reality that they abandoned much of their base over the years.
From 1955 to 1994, Democrats continuously held the majority in the House, 40 years. In the ensuing 24 years, Democrats have had a majority for a grand total of four years, 2006-2010.
Democrats have convinced themselves that Republicans have a majority in the House because of gerrymandering, ignoring the fact that the Republicans took back the House in 2010, before the 2010 Census had reflected the hypothetical Republican gerrymandering available because of massive loss of state legislative seats during the previous decade. Republicans took back the house with Congressional districts that had been gerrymandered by Democrats.
Democrats are in the minority because they have ejected huge groups of their core constituencies.
Fundamentalist Christians, a big southern block, always voted Democrat until the failed to accept the abortion as a sacrament Like most undereducated populations, they were Democrats until evicted. Democrats guarantee they will never return by continually denigrating them.
Not having learned their lesson, they took a similar path with white working class people. They looked the other way with Obama's insulting comments, but Hillary went too far.
Democrats have alienated Blacks, by creating equivalency with LGBT "discriminations" along with illegal immigrants.
3
Personally, I could not care less about the census. I religiously file my tax returns and pay my taxes. I never fill out the census forms. I am pretty sure the federal government knows where I am and who lives in the house.
But speaking in a strictly legal sense, since federal politicians are elected by citizens to represent defined districts shouldn’t the number of citizens in, and their physical addresses within, the universe (the state) which contains such districts be known? That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also know how many legal and illegal immigrants live in a district. A politician is able to run on a platform of representing non-citizens interests as well. Aren’t we always told that more information is better?
5
@Duane Coyle
The federal government doesn't work like that.
And please fill out your census forn.
There is nothing wrong with asking a person if they are a US citizen. I am all for adding that question to the 2020 Census.
76
I am all for a nationwide movement encouraging all respondents to skip the question.
2
@Valerie Are you okay with not getting a straight answer?
1
As a matter of principle, I would not answer the citizenship question (even though I am a citizen and vote). I am sure, just like me, that a lot of people will leave this question blank. So what does that blank do? Making a political decision on an unanswered question on the census would have drastic consequences if it were used to add more/less seats in congress. This would also face a constitutional challenge. The government has data on the citizens who vote (including me). Why don't they base the seats on that data which is more precise rather than on the census data which may be a hit or miss. BTW did the founding fathers have census data to create the first legislative council? NO!
6
Look at the red/blue map. The two coasts are blue and we have a vast swath of middle America red. Representation by population numbers alone are already skewed to reduce the millions of votes on the coasts.
To address this growing imbalance of fair and equal representation a lot is going to have to change big time in America. The Senate, House and electoral college (is not thrown out) are going to have to be engaged and maybe altered? It will be the biggest fight yet to come between the GOP and Democrats and will touch on issues of race, the economy and jobs, manufacturing and infrastructure needs - you name it.
Short of paying people to move to the middle states, the population trends show no sign of reversing. So what should America do?
In the meantime, this is another maneuver being used by the GOP to assert dominance over what they consider to be diversified and liberal therefore evil coastal populations.
4
@Elizabeth When revolution comes, do you suppose it will take the form of Blue state Governors telling all their 'citizens' not to pay federal taxes, deploying the National Guards against the collection agents of the US Treasury? Only Canada could provide a connected location for the coastal blue states to continue being together.
If we want the economy to prosper, how about apportioning seats in Congress based on state GDP per capita? Prosperous states must be doing something right, and the whole country would benefit greatly if their policies are applied nationally.
3
@UA
WHOA WHOA WHOA stop being so rational about this!
@UA
— 1 District of Columbia 186,172
1 5 New York 75,360
2 5 Massachusetts 74,564
3 5 Delaware 73,931
4 5 Connecticut 73,643
5 8 North Dakota 68,723
6 8 Alaska 68,356
7 9 California 66,310
8 9 New Jersey 64,970
9 9 Wyoming 64,659
10 9 Washington 64,454
11 9 Maryland 62,874
12 9 Illinois 61,837
13 9 Minnesota 60,716
14 9 Nebraska 60,481
15 11 Virginia 58,768
16 11 Hawaii 58,742
17 11 Colorado 58,422
18 11 New Hampshire 58,327
19 11 Texas 58,028
— 11 United States 57,118
20 12 Iowa 57,028
21 12 Pennsylvania 56,625
22 12 South Dakota 55,623
23 12 Oregon 55,411
24 13 Rhode Island 54,365
25 13 Ohio 53,874
26 13 Wisconsin 53,565
27 13 Kansas 52,715
28 13 Indiana 51,546
29 13 Utah 51,243
30 13 North Carolina 51,041
31 14 Georgia 50,955
32 15 Louisiana 50,219
33 15 Nevada 50,161
34 16 Vermont 49,780
35 16 Tennessee 49,430
36 16 Missouri 49,383
37 17 Michigan 49,076
38 22 Oklahoma 46,625
39 24 Florida 44,964
40 24 New Mexico 44,832
41 24 Maine 44,518
42 24 Kentucky 44,409
43 24 Montana 44,118
44 24 Arizona 43,709
45 26 South Carolina 42,272
46 27 Alabama 42,124
47 28 Arkansas 40,388
48 28 West Virginia 40,071
49 28 Idaho 39,970
50 34 Mississippi 36,029
@UA
How do you apportion GDP by state? IBM headquarters are in NYS and NY takes credit for IBM contributions to GDP, along with taking credit for payroll taxes paid to the federal government and federal income taxes paid by the corporation despite the fact that the company has employees working nationwide who have never set foot in NY and earns profit nationwide.
Washington state takes credit for Amazon.com, despite the fact that a miniscule proportion of its income is earned in Washington.
National companies are more likely to be headquartered in the old NE states and on the west coast, which inflates the GDP apportioned to those states.
You raise an interesting point, however, that the founding fathers would likely approve.
When the union was founded, they decided that the House should be apportioned by population, but that federal taxes would also be assessed to the states by the same census that apportioned representation. If California and NY were providing revenue to the federal till in proportion to their populations, they would not be seeking to bump their population by a few illegal aliens and homeless people.
3
We should all strongly support and encourage the collection of good Census information about our population, including information about citizenship, to make better public policy decisions. Adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census, however, is clearly not the best way to get an accurate count of non-citizens and will in fact negatively impact the collection of the other Census data. It's also unnecessary given the American Community Survey already collects that information.
I propose that all concerned citizens help fund a "Send in your Census, Skip the Citizenship Question" campaign which would both supplement the meager Census Bureau's promotional efforts (which were gutted) and improve the counts for everyone.
3
@Sheldon
It is not clear that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census is not the best way to get an accurate count. If people who have a concern about a potential undercount of less than two million people, rather than expending millions on litigations, they should spend those millions on outreach. Advancing the narrative that the government is illegitimate is contrary to the objective that people should accurately respond to the census queries.
Your suggestion is pointless. If you and all other likeminded leftists refuse to answer the question, you will defeat the accuracy of the data collected, but will not affect the undercount.
You will create extra work for the census bureau when they have to bump the census data up against IRS, Social Security and other federal records, but that will just create some temporary federal jobs, so its all good.
2
Right wing politics relies upon dehumanization and disempowerment. Whether it is locking out immigrants, attacking non-judeo-christian religions, evangelizing against LGBTQ people, scapegoating visible ethnic minorities, placing difficult economic burdens upon poor people, equating liberalism with illegitimacy, or drawing a false equivalency between openly racist violence and the pursuit of constitutionally protected civil rights, right wing political power remains weak in a modern democracy unless it can obstruct and deny the votes and voices of people are not white, wealthy, conservative, corporatists. Excluding entire classes of people from legal personhood while granting the rights of "the people" to wealthy (and often untaxed) organizations is an injustice that is necessary for right wing political power to flourish.
3
Plenty of noise about nothing. The citizenship question is essential. If it leads to more conservative house, be it. Blocking such issues will be an attempt to silence the majority. Democrats should focus on convincing the majority that their policies are good for creating the society we want to live in.
44
@Kodali But why? The Constitution mandates a counting of residents, not citizens. Indeed, the citizen question is likely to result in an undercount of residents. The census isn't about who gets to vote, but who gets represented. Maybe this principle was more obvious when women (and others) didn't have the right to vote, but children and, yes, immigrants, should be counted. Realistically, on the state level this is about federal allocation of real resources which must serve all the people in a state.
35
@Kodali
Actually, we already have minority rule in our nation. Less populous states' voters carry far more influence than do the voters in more populous states. For example, a single electoral vote in California represents roughly 679,000 residents, while a single electoral vote in South Dakota represents just over 273,000 voters. The purpose of the citizenship question is politically motivated, a cynical attempt to shift ever greater influence to an ever smaller number of people.
9
@Rdeannyc The Constitution only calls for a "counting", so why ask all the race/education/income/household questions? Let's drop everything except a straight-up count and let organizations with vested interests in all of the other data figure it out for themselves. Might even help cut down gerrymandering.
How about the question, "Does this person have a secondary school education?" Why not factor in education in determining the voter population? Surely, having a greater percentage of minimally educated voters is good for our country, our democracy and society. It might incentivize states to promote higher education among their inhabitants.
3
While it would be handy to know educational level, it is not justified for determining representation, because even uneducated people can vote.
If the Republicans are for it, the safest assumption is that its effect is to disenfranchise anyone that doesn't agree with them. We can make this change right after we change the way Senate seats are apportioned and after we eliminate the Electoral College, which empowesr rural areas the same way the Republicans say the census empowers urban areas...
56
@BoulderEagle
My suggestion is that, for purposes of allocation of Senators, Maine, NH and VT be annexed by NY, and "Greater NY" gets eight at large Senators. Delaware could be annexed by PA, and "Greater PA" could have four Senators.
Go ahead and draw up the Constitutional Amendment, get both Houses to agree and set out to the states on a mission of getting 38 states to approve it, with no changes in the wording. you do not have much of a chance of being successful. but maybe you will defeat the windmills. Even if controlled by Democrats, VT, NH, DE, ND, SD, WY, AK, ID, HA, AZ, RI and WV are going to vote no.
This article clearly spells out the long-term Republican agenda but not the long-term political consequences, which include the break-up of the country. Long a fantasy of Confederate apologists and Soviet political theorists, national dissolution will become a real possibility (again) when imbalances such as the one described here or the related one of unequal representation in the Senate - which will only get worse in future decades - become intolerable to the great majority of Americans, citizen or not. There's no way to tell how this will play out, but the Trump regime is already pointing the country in this direction (with Russian backing?). When will we see ultimatums from "blue" states for Constitutional change? "nullification" of unpopular federal rules or legislation? These things could become realities sooner than most of us would like to think.
12
This is all predicated on the premise that non-citizens are completing the census to begin with. Non-citizens are not inclined to draw attention to themselves with government forms. Under the fence and under the radar.
Sounds like another smoke and mirror tactic by the White House to deflect from legal issues.
5
Ever since 2010 I've been puzzled by the low population figure for Atlanta compared to other southern cities, such as Nashville and Charlotte. The proportion of metro area population to the official city's is probably the largest in the nation: more than 10 to 1. I've wondered whether whether this is due to illegal immigrants dodging the census takers for fear of being detected and deported.
7
What is the purpose of the allocation? As all persons in an area, whether they be children, migrants, undocumented migrants use resources, e.g. roads and utilities. The logic put forth by people who want to allocate by registered voters among other variants is similar to allocating pediatricians by the number of adults with retirement communities being allocated a substantial number and areas with highest proportion of children the least; effectively, the end result is counter productive to the health and safety of the country.
16
@Michael Arrighi
If the purpose of the census was to allocate resources, then I would agree with you. But the purpose is to determine how many representatives a state receives.
Further, every census, except 2010, asked a citizenship question in the form of "are you a citizen, permanent resident, etc." or "where were you born?"
Census data is confidential and cannot be used by law enforcement, why wouldn't we want an accurate of who is in our country?
61
@Pat
The argument can be made that those areas without appropriate representation will not be able to receive sufficient amount of resources because they do not have enough power in the congress to make compromises. If counting citizens and apportioning representatives based on those numbers was the original intent of the census....we would not have had the 3/5 clause to accommodate the large numbers of non-citizen slaves.
One only has to look at the effect of not having true representation has had on the ability of the residents of DC and Puerto Rico to garner sufficient resources..................
The goal of the GOP is clear...they want to dilute the representation of Blue states and urban centers.
1
@Pat You suggest that every census, except 2010, asked the citizenship question. Since 1970 that question was not posed to everyone. A question concerning national origin or citizenship was posed to a smaller sub-set of the census.
By way of contrast the administration's proposal is to ask this of everyone.
If I illegally moved to another country I would not expect the right to vote until I was granted some level of legal status for that country. I don't understand why it should be different here.
I am all for increasing legal immigration, providing alternative paths toward citizenship or creating programs for legal status, but awarding the right to vote to those who are not a recognized part of our community seems odd.
Thanks for your consideration.
73
@AnejoDiego This isn't about the right to vote. It's about the basis for determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.
Noting that the shift in reps that would happen is a further part of the Republican scheme to give conservatives disproportionate representation.
138
@NorCal Girl
This is about maintaining equal representation for the nation's citizens. The census is used to allocate the number of congressional districts and electoral votes. Those districts should be based on the number of US citizens rather than residents (non-citizen and citizen).
1
@SSS That's your opinion. So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not agreed with your opinion. And their opinion is the one that matters.
Everybody knows the " big city " vote is determined by a few social issues.
If those social issues were allowed to determine the direction of our country we would be in a permanent depression...thereby hurting the very people ( the most ) that vote only for those issues.
8
@Joe Paper Hmmm. You know about the "big city" do you? lol Actually people in rural states such as Wyoming are OVER represented in the Senate. Their 2 senators have as much voting power as your 2 in PA. Compare the populations: Wyoming has about 600,000 residents and Pennsylvania has 12.8 million. Of course, your state has 18 members of the House of Representatives and Wyoming has 1, so there is some balance. In PA, it is probably to your advantage personally to include all residents, not just those you favor.
2
@Joe Paper Seems doubtful that you know anything at all about what issues drive people in the "big city."
2
@Joe Paper. As large as my "big city" is and as many people there are, so are the number of issues and views you will find here. So please, try and open up your "small town" mind. (Sorry, couldn't help myself. You handed that one to me.)
2
What if someone started a campaign for everyone in the next census to check “Mixed Race” or Other? Don’t the Me23 and other DNA services show practically every person in US has at least some ancestors that include every racial group? How could the government penalize that behavior if it is scientifically valid? Maybe using the Census to do apportionment calculations beyond what the Founding Fathers intended as a simple head count might not be such a good idea.
6
@Michael Blazin Those race / ethnicity categories are a mess. They should separate "Asian" into Indian, China, Japan, various Middle Eastern, etc, who are now all lumped in together. The Hispanic / not Hispanic segment is nuts also. When you go to analyze the data you have to calculate who's black Hispanic or white Hispanic or other Hispanic. These categories are incredibly useless. Unless your category gets you some kind of government benefit, we might as well all be picking from a color wheel, like peach with olive highlights, or coffee, espresso, with 2% milk not cream. Sheesh.
I find it intriguing that, on the state level at least, any partisan advantage in this hypothetical apportionment would be somewhat questionable. Most of the "winning" states (apart from Louisiana & Montana) are either traditionally blue or swing. NY & California stand to lose, but then so does Texas. Guess we'll find out in the near future.
5
Some added data for clarification https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml
However, the use of eligible voters or anything other than a complete census is thinly disguised long range Republican plan to get us back to the point where only white landed gentry were eligible to vote, minorities and renters need not apply. At least that is what my red state local Republican chairman is hoping for.
39
@tom
No one is attempting to exclude non-citizen residents for the count.
1
@tom Amen!
@tom
"thinly disguised long range Republican plan to get us back to the point where only white landed gentry were eligible to vote, minorities and renters need not apply."
Please, this hyperbole comes too close to nonsense. This is not any better than Democrats being accused of wanting to eliminate borders. Actually, I think the latter is closer to truth than Republicans wanting to make renters ineligible to vote.
It seems this entire discussion is based on the
the expected gain or loss to a partisan advocacy
of different ways of counting population.
It's a clear and thoughtful discussion, but now should
be followed by a discussion of what the Constitution
requires or implies.
We can't always first be asking, "Who wins if...?" Before
deciding an issue. A pretty high percentage of the US
population must have been born elsewhere at the time
the Constitution was ratified. What was the stated purpose
of the census ? Was it more about electoral votes or about
allocating housing, health care, or other population-based
resources?
12
@mitchel
considering that at the time voting was generally for citizen land owners, aka stake holders.
1
@mitchell
When the country was founded, the federal government was funded by payments from the states. The payment each state was required to make was proportional to their share of the population. The ten year census was used to allocate representation in the House and how much each state was required to pay the federal government. [The 3/5th compromise reduced the amount of federal payments required for non-citizen slaves in exchange for a proportionate reduction in representation in the House. The dirty secret of the Civil War is that the North wanted to free the slaves in order to raise taxes on the South. That is the same reason the North, after freeing the slaves, did everything possible to prevent them from moving north. In 1776, every state was a slave state, but the population of slaves in the North was small because they couldn't tolerate the cold weather in he accommodations the Yankees were prepared to provide.]
Housing, healthcare and all other population based resources were the responsibility of state and local governments. The federal government was responsible for national defense, the federal government, like the federal court system and collecting tariffs, and for paying any debt that had been incurred by the federal government.
When the 13th amendment was passed in 1913, it was the first time the federal government had its own revenue stream from payments directly from citizens.
By counting non citizens when apportioning Congressional seats, we give extra power and influence to citizens living in areas with large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants. Why should a citizen's vote in California or New York count more than a citizen's vote in Ohio? Not only does the current system give more power to citizens living in states with large numbers of immigrants but it also sends significant amounts of federal money. Many supporters of immigration not only benefit from increased political power but also earn significant incomes from government funding. Maybe this double benefit explains the support of the current system and immigration in segments of the society. I wonder if the system were reversed and no extra political power or money came with large numbers of immigrants, and the costs had to be paid by the local people, would people still support mass immigration?
75
@Mike
Can you explain what you mean by "supporters...earn significant income from gov. funding"?
I thought blue states, in particular your tri-state area, subsidize red states.
5
@Doctor B
"Following your line of reasoning, we need to immediately eliminate the Electoral College..."
Nice try, doctor, but you're obfuscating. The Electoral College is meant for power distribution among US CITIZENS.
The citizenship restriction is paramount to avoid alien influence on American life. Ever heard about a probe into Russian influence, or know who R. Muller is?
Russian influence is a child's play compared to the influence by the alien element inside the country.
@Mike. In reality, the liberal "blue" states are actually subsidizing the conservative "red" states with thier Federal tax money. From an article by the Associated Press: Connecticut residents paid an average of $15,643 per person in federal taxes in 2015, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Massachusetts paid $13,582 per person, New Jersey paid $13,137 and New York paid $12,820.
California residents paid an average of $10,510. At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665. Low-tax red states also fare better when you take into account federal spending. Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71. Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.
https://www.apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c
10