What are the odds the right wingers vote in a block for the choice that excludes poor brown people?
Just sayin'.
4
I live in a red state and I will answer "no" to the citizenship question. I hope many people in red states do the same.
3
Yes, the SCOTUS ruling will be telling: if they rule for the Trump administration it will be clear that "originalists" are full of nonsense. I am thinking they will uphold lower court rulings against the citizenship question. However, in the worst case scenario, possibly this silver lining: it will be another compelling reason to formulate and enact a rational immigration policy, complete with a rational refugee policy. We are not fully replacing our population by citizen births, according to recent reports I have read. There is room and will be room for immigrants and refugees who qualify for immigrant status. Some of our existing laws are fairly good, but we don't commit the resources to make them work (backlogs of immigration/refugee cases, lack of resources to secure some significant parts of the southern border, etc.) So the resistance to effective, compassionate policies is: the status quo works for employers who want sub-paid labor, works for anti-immigration activists, and works for populists who want a large contingent of poor and suffering migrants who will possibly cause large voting blocks to go their way. I am sure there are other groups with investments in the status quo. We must insist on leaders who believe that competency, compassion, prosperity and efficiency are possible in our liberal democratic republic (using the classical meaning of those three descriptors.) We should vote our any leaders who refuse good-faith efforts for immigration/refugee reform.
5
On almost all issues these days, I am a Democratic voter. Except on this one. The census should ask this question, and non-citizens should absolutely not be used for legislative apportionment. Counting non-citizens legitimizes illegal immigration and (in my view) corrupts politics in areas with a high density of such people because it gives extra seats to politicians who really have no intent to represent these non-citizens who can't vote anyway. May as well count everyone on earth if we can't set a basic understanding that for legislative apportionment it is citizens that matter. I also detect a political twist in this: The only reason this fight exists is because it is presently a threat to the total number of democratic seats in Congress. Much like the odd Electoral College issue, this is all about party politics and not a genuine belief in the issue.
22
The constitutional purpose of the decennial census is to count only U.S. citizens. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution originally read: “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.”
All free persons—included free blacks and Indians who paid taxes—were counted because at the time they were citizens by virtue of residency. Slaves and Indians who were not taxed were not counted because they were not citizens. The were counted separately on "slave schedules" and reservation rolls.
After slavery was abolished in 1965, Section 2 was modified to read: “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.”
Slaves were no longer excluded because there were no slaves. Indians who were not Taxed were still excluded because they were not citizens. This apply to almost all Indians. The census did not count until the Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924.
Today, residency no longer makes all people residing in the United States citizens. Million of U.S. residents are not citizens. They should be counted separately for citizens.
15
@William Case Nice attempt at historical fiction, but there is absolutely no basis for the statement "The constitutional purpose of the decennial census is to count only U.S. citizens." If the document meant that, it would have said so.
2
@William Case
There is nothing in the language that says that only citizens were to be counted; the Framers could have just said- "counting the whole number of citizens". And slaves were not excluded, they were the "all other persons" that were to be counted at three-fifths.
3
The constitutional purpose of the decennial census is to count only U.S. citizens.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution original read: “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.”
All free persons—included free blacks and Indians who paid taxes—were counted because at the time they were citizens by virtue of residency. Slaves and Indians who were not taxed because they were citizens. The were counted separately on "slave schedules" and reservation rolls.
After slavery was abolished in 1965, Section 2 was modified to read: “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.”
Slaves were no longer excluded because there were no slaves. Indians who were not Taxed were still excluded because they were not citizens. This apply to almost all Indians. The census did not count until the Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924.
Today, residency no longer makes all people residing in the United States citizens. Million of U.S. residents are not citizens. They should be counted separately for citizens.
8
First. What is the purpose of the census as mandated in the Constitution?
Simply put to count (enumerate) every American citizen to insure that they are equally represented in the House. Any other question is irrelevant to that purpose.
Second. What purpose does a question on citizenship serve?
Again simply put to insure that only American citizens are counted.
Third. Why are the Democrats fighting to prevent the question from being asked?
Not so simple. From the perspective of a Libertarian this appears to be am effort to manipulate the census to shift the balance more towards the centers of illegal immigration residency. More representation for these centers means that they Democrats will be able to control the legislative process far in excess of the actual number of voters they represent.
Lastly, the United States in NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional Republic. The selection process has overtones of a democratic vote BUT since the franchise is limited to just a select body (adult, citizens, who have not been stripped of their rights by adjudication) it is clearly a Republic.
Your editorial is offensively blatant in its effort to manipulate the census to undermine the Republic.
21
@Canis Scot Completely wrong (except on the last point). It is those who are making up an intent in the Constitution to count only citizens who are trying to manipulate the census, for whatever purpose.
2
America has the right and obligation to understand who is living in our country. I predict that we will be shocked at the number of illegals.
12
@Bill I doubt they will say they are not citizens.
1
@Bill
A recent Yale study sheds light on the number of illegal aliens currently residing in our country....over 20 MILLION ....not including their several million American-born offspring.
Would you be interested to know precisely what these people are costing American taxpayers year after year...after year?
13
An undercount of 6.5 million people was good but not great. The real goal of Mr. Ross and the GOP is too under count as many black and brown people as possible. That's all this new question about citizenship is about.
17
@Son Of Liberty - In my 1st comment, 2 above yours I point to my 2d submission, just filed in which I note that the US Census Bureau system is so hopelessly out of date that the first move that should be taken is to end the system given it by 18th and 19th century racists, the uniquely American system of assigning people to "races"
Former Census Director Kenneth Prewitt has made a firm case for ending that system.
Then future Republicans will not be able to gerrymander districts as they now do. Unfortunately, they will probably find a way, maybe analysis of crowd photos.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
3
In the Trump Administration, the idea that the census data will respect the privacy of individuals is a total joke. "Oh but the law says ...."
When did the existence of laws stop Trump? He WILL use that data to hunt down and expel immigrants, whether it is legal or not. Then, true to form he will take any resistance to court and tie it up for years trying to make the Constitution unconstitutional while deporting as many immigrants as he can in the meantime.
Any immigrants who refuse to answer the census are perfectly rational in their choice. The Trump Administration follows neither the Constitution nor the laws and everyone, not just immigrants, should care.
3
@dpaqcluck
"When did the existence of laws stop Trump?" It would seem to me that since these people are in the United States unlawfully and the Constitution mandates the President is to faithfully execute the laws then it is incumbent that he deport illegal aliens. He is following the law in accordance with the Constitution.
11
yesterday, my wife and I answered the citizenship question on the American Community Survey that I received in the mail, as required by law. can a religion question be far behind?
10
@Jerome Krase - Very interesting. Former US Census Director Kenneth Prewitt writes in chapter 11 of his What Is Your Race that he proposes to replace the present USCB race-based system with one like the Swedish system, SES data of the kind collected by ACS.
Required by law?
I have never received ACS survey.
My Email at
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
1
Criminalization without representation.
Non-citizens, even those with green cards and American families and children, have no say in our immigration laws. Such laws can have profound impacts on their lives, particularly when changed. Yes, legal residents can sometimes become citizens, as some are becoming. But when we are talking penalties including incarceration, deportating, and tearing apart families, the idea that these people have no right to a say in their future residency is not just unfair, it is un-American.
To deny a legal resident equal justice is cruel and unusual punishment.
3
@Old Ben
Of COURSE non-citizens have no right to any say in our immigration laws. I don't have any say in Germany's immigration laws, or Togo's immigration laws or China's immigration laws or (insert country here). If you're not a citizen in this country you don't get to vote.
That is not only fair it is necessary for a country-a closed politic- to exist in the first place.
Again, it seems as if the end game is to remove every single distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
Who benefits from this?
Certainly not US citizens.
15
Let's be clear and honest about the motivation behind a citizenship question on this census. It comes from an unrelenting assault on black and brown people that started with Trump's anti-Mexican comments as he came down the escalator at the announcement of his candidacy. Later with filling the West Wing with White Nationalists. The 'intention' is clear. Now we will find out how the 'strict Constitutionalist' Supreme Court Justices vote on language in the Constitution that is quite clear in it's language and intent.
39
@Barton - I understand the basis for the assertion you make, but may I suggest that there is a far better way to deal with the citizenship question, a way that deserves discussion here, even at the reply level.
The US Census Bureau system of classifying us Americans is archaic and should be ended. The former Director of the USCB has made a compelling argument for doing so in his book published 2013.
If and when we are no longer assigned to "races" and ethnicities, and if and when we have universal life-long voter registration then the future Republican Party will have to find new ways to discriminate and it surely will.
USCB terminology and concepts are all the fatal invention of racists going back to the 19th century and earlier. The US is unique among so-called advanced nations in classifying its citizens using a system that has no scientific basis and no logically argued basis.
Unfortuately, the Census Bureau sent out a trial balloon proposing to do the opposite. It proposed removing from the present white-race category all people whose lines of descent traced back to Middle East and North Africa. If that proposal had been approved for the 2020 census a new "race" would have been created called MENA. White Nationalists embraced this proposal, apparently with the result that the CB set aside MENA.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
7
The only thing clearer than the Constitution’s clear statement that everybody’s supposed to be counted is this: the whole purpose of adding that question is to threaten and to intimidate.
34
Utter nonsense. The only people who are intimidated by the question are those who have broken US laws by being here illegally.
21
More and more Americans recognize that Republicans exclusively represent the interests of corporations and the wealthiest donors, and have nothing to offer anyone else. Republicans thus have an increasing need to manipulate the electoral process to retain their power and ensure what they consider their entitlement to "majority party" status. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are the tried-and-true techniques for manipulation, along with possible help from Russians who consider Republican control of the United States beneficial to the imperial ambitions of their Motherland and its Czar.
Under the Trump administration, the census is merely one more process that can further partisan goals. So far, district courts have not hesitated to reject the citizenship question as lacking a legitimate (non-partisan) purpose, and its promulgation a violation of administrative procedures. So now it's up to the Supreme Court.
The real question is whether the Republican majority of Justices will put the partisan interests they were specifically appointed to uphold ahead of the law. The import of that question goes beyond the census itself. If the Republicans rule for their party, it will undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process as well the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and take the next step toward replacing our beleaguered democratic institutions with one-party authoritarian rule.
44
@Ted You may be right, but it may also be true that more and more Americans recognize that Democrats exclusively represent the interest of illegal immigrants because they believe that all illegals will vote for them.
15
@Dr B
I see. Republicans represent the wealthy, Democrats represent illegal immigrants. The rest of us are unrepresented. Thanks for that insight.
12
Amendment XIV, Section 2, leaves no doubt about who is to be counted. There is no ambiguity in "the whole number of persons in each State".
"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."
Commenters who say only citizens should be counted are proposing to violate the Constitution. Also, it is an easy inference that anything about the process that is likely to result in not counting the whole number should be forbidden.
This case will show which Justices put party completely before country.
76
@Thomas Zaslavsky Amending the Constitution to require that the head count of citizens and legal residents should be used to determine representation is about as likely to happen as doing away with the electoral college. But it’s also disingenuous for the editorial board to refer to “immigrants” rather than people who are in the country illegally and not to refer to the real reason a fair number of people want to let said people stay in the U.S. Flooding states with illegal immigrants will boost the population count and representation in Congress, not to mention supply cheap labor and drive down wages and require lots of services.
40
@Thomas Zaslavsky What about "excluding Indians not taxed"? This would seem to imply that only those paying taxes are counted?
11
@Bookworm8571 It doesn't matter what a "fair number" of people want or why. The Constitution must be followed or amended. The rule of law is paramount. Especially now.
19
Some historical perspective on the population census might be interesting. Until 1924, when Congress passed legislation to severely restrict immigration, there were few limits on who could enter. During the period 1880 to 1924, millions of people came here from Europe to make a new life. They were all counted in the census, regardless of the fact that most of them did not become naturalized citizens until they had been here at least five years. The US government census documents for those years, up to and including the 1940 census, are available free on line.
I recently learned, in the course of doing genealogical research, that before 1922 (when women were given the right to vote) women could not become naturalized citizens in their own right because they did not have the right to vote. They were counted in the census, however. I would imagine that these new immigrants, like my grandmother, were proud to be counted as residents of the US.
Imagine if Wilbur Ross’s plan to add a citizenship question to the census had been in effect back then. Millions of women might not have participated in the census for fear of deportation. The states that absorbed the greatest number of immigrants would not have benefitted from federal resources that might have been available to them based on population statistics.
Were we a more liberal nation then? Something to think about.
38
@Barbara You seem to be missing the point. The only ones who would fear being included in the census it seems would be the illegal aliens, not those immigrants in this country legally.
The locales that invite illegals are opposed to the question of citizenship are those who would want to include illegals in the census so as to collect federal funds they would not be entitled to in the first place. They would be stealing funds that should be geared towards communities that don't harbor illegal residents.
32
@Diane
You're missing the point. Some legals could be intimidated because, with some reason, they might not be confident that ICE wouldn't go after them my mistake as part of a general roundup.
7
@Diane
Your comment is neither relevant, nor accurate. It's not relevant because all persons present are to be counted according to the Constitution. Read it.
It's not accurate given that ICE has detained and deported legal immigrants, including arresting people for the crime of speaking a foreign language. Thus the question would serve to intimidate immigrants and to thereby reduce their representation in Congress.
Finally, as any one who does their homework knows, immigrants contribute in a positive way to the economy. If one is not a racist, one can take advantage of this fact, and enjoy a stronger economy, which is one reason why the blue states generally outperform the red states economically.
7
While endlessly hyperventilating over Donald Trump’s alleged malfeasance, Democrats, themselves, work tirelessly on behalf of foreign migrants illegally swarming into our country, costing American taxpayers billions, year after year.
Democrats are, in fact, accomplices to this brazen trespass and disregard for our sovereignty...yet fail to comprehend their own outrageous hypocrisy.
7
"Mr. Ross has defended the citizenship question by arguing that the Justice Department needs the information to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Judge Furman rightfully called that rationale “pretextual” — the secretary searched for it after he had decided what he wanted.'
Wilbur Ross has been incredibly sneaky about this. I'm pretty sure the president demanded he do this, and he's been making the most convoluted excuses and protests ever since. Every time I see an article about it, it's as if Ross was slapped down yet again, based on the spirit and rationale for the Census in the first place.
It's obvious why Republicans want an under-count and are playing on noncitizen fears. Never mind a person who's not a citizen yet might be here perfectly legally--Team Trump wants to scare them, and to punish sanctuary cities where many noncitizens reside.
It's equally obvious that Democrats want an accurate count for allocation of government resources and representative apportionment, whether or not census responders can vote.
To me, it seems only one ruling favors democracy as t he founders intended. If the court rules along partisan lines, well, you be the judge.
97
@ChristineMcM "Democrats want an accurate count for allocation of government resources and representative apportionment, whether or not census responders can vote."
I do *not* want tax dollars or extra congressmen allocated to illegal immigrants.
29
@Sue: well, what "you" want doesn't matter since this is a constitutional matter. I want Trump removed from office, but I don't always get what I want, either.
19
@ChristineMcM Up until a decade or so ago, the citizenship question was asked. Was that unconstitutional?
20
I am a White, American-born citizen, but I am wary of complying with the census in 2020. The article is entirely correct in pointing out that this administration cannot be trusted with confidential information. It's a pretty sure bet that census information will be turned over to immigration and other departments of Trump's government for review. The census is no longer just the census. To this administration, it is a tool for control and enforcement and who knows what else?
12
All that is necessary to make your point stick is to show what exact confidential information has been betrayed by the Trump administration. And please compare that to previous administrations. And might as well throw in all the FBI leaks about the Trump investigations, just to make things plain.
6
@Ms. Pea - Very simple, do not check the "race" box/boxes and if there is a Citizen box, do not check that either. I won't.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
1
What other questions does the NYTime editorial board want to have excluded for fear of an undercount ? Gender?
7
Current issue aside - why force legal citizens of one area to support illegal residents in another? And then give more representation through congressional districts based on the combined population of people rather than actual citizens? Something is obviously flawed, and should be addressed directly rather than through this silly charade.
7
"The Constitution calls for an “actual Enumeration” of each state’s population every 10 years, and since 1790, Congress has enacted legislation to fulfill that mandate. The decennial count, managed at the United States Census Bureau, aims to fulfill that constitutional requirement."
Dear Members of the Board,
Not surprisingly, you fail to mention WHY the Constitution stipulates a census every ten years. The ONLY purpose for the census is the apportionment of representatives in the House. In times past, the only relevant question was how many people lived in a place. Now, because of illegal immigration, another legitimate question would be about citizenship. If people are here illegally and they are counted, that would skew representation in states that have large populations of illegals.
The original purpose of the census has been corrupted. In it are questions about age, race and gender. There is no constitutional basis for the government to know any of that. So why does the federal bureaucracy need to have that information in order to apportion seats in the House?
If a state like California wants illegal immigrants counted, they should do so at the state level. They can do things such as changing the makeup of their legislatures and allow said illegals to vote in state and local elections. The state can allocate their own funds for social support if needed.
6
As the calculation of federal support to states is no longer tied to the census, the main reason to obtain an accurate count is for the purpose of allocating Congressional representation and therefore electoral votes. Even if a census were able to give a more accurate count of citizens in each state (remember, not all citizens are eligible to vote), this would still not create a more even population based allocation of electoral votes due to the capping of the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435. Quick math reveals that based on 7/1/18 population estimates and current electoral vote allocation, each electoral vote represents approx 710,000 people in the 4 largest states (CA, TX, NY, FL) while the corresponding number for the 3 smallest states (WY, MT, RI) plus D.C. is 1 vote/260,000 people.
While non-citizens can not vote (and multiple investigations have demonstrated that voting by non-citizens is NOT a problem), the Constitution mandates counting of all persons in the census. As all laws pertain to all occupants of the U.S., one can make an argument that representation in Congress should be based on the number of people living in the state and not just citizens. Our Founding Fathers are silent on the matter of illegal immigrants, possibly as this was not a concept in the 1780's. As the inclusion of a citizenship question will reduce participation in the census, there appears to be no benefit to its inclusion in the upcoming census.
1
The disenfranchisement of American citizens has already been backed by the courts - congressional districts are based on population, not American citizen populations. This leads to urban district citizens having more clout per vote that suburban and rural citizens. it's the largest civil rights violation we have but the press is unconcerned because it benefits democrats.
7
The Supreme Court will rule the Census Bureau can add the citizenship questions to future census forms. The Census Bureau has asked the question on census forms many times. It was last asked in the 2000 census when it appeared on the long from. If asking the citizenship question on pervious census forms did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 when it was asked on the 1950 census and 2000 census, how could asking it on the 2020 census form violate the Administrative Procedure Act
Besides, the argument that counting the number of U.S. citizens as well as noncitizens is unconstitutional is preposterous. The Constitution does not require the count all residents Article, Section 2 calls for a count of all “free persons” because all free persons, at the time, were citizens by virtue of residency. It excludes slaves and Indians not taxed from the census count because they were not citizens.
Slaves were enumerated separately from the census on “slave schedules” while Indian agents provided separate estimates of tribal populations. The census began counting Native Americans only when the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens. If the United States still had slaves, they would not counted because they would be specifically excluded from the census because they would not be citizens.
4
The 2010 census was during a time unemployment at 9.7% and there were plenty of qualified applicants for the 540,000 temporary jobs. Most of these were people sent out to an address that did not return the mailed form.
As of March the rate stands at 3.8%. The Federal Government is a big user of consultants and outsourcing; they are going to outsource this. Data quality will be compromised; but an undercount usually occurs in minority, but particularly immigrant households. Legal households.
1
Some undocumented people have lived here for a couple of decades and have American born children. The fear by these families of deportation is real, given Trump's directive to ICE.
The purpose of the census is to count everyone living in the U.S. IMO, Trump wants the citizenship question in order to find undocumented people in order to deport them. I have no doubt that a law breaker like Trump would use the info between agencies for nefarious purposes. Trump has no inner angels.
47
while I wouldn't put anything past Trump either, Bannon's purpose in proposing the citizenship question was mainly political: by discouraging people from reporting through a tactic of fear, Democratic leaning districts would get less representation and less money returned to their districts from the feds. the plan was to make life better for Republicans and worse for everyone else. underreported population figures would also result in an Electoral College even more weighted to Republicans. the purpose of the question is to throw more power and influence to sparsely populated, mainly white, mainly conservative rural disticts that favor Republicans, at the expense of more densely populated urban areas that typically favor Democrats.
16
@Pottree are you objecting to a lack of funding and representation from the federal government for those who are present in the country in direct violaton of long established laws set in pkace by said federal government?
Bizarre.............
10
The founders asked that all people present be counted. They did not say only citizens. Money from the federal government is distributed based on population. Legal citizen or not, everyone present in this country accesses government, state, and local services in some form or another. The census count has worked for a few hundred years now. The only reason the question of citizenship is being asked is to skew our elections even more in favor of one party by taking away seats in Congress from another party and by giving one political party more power than another thereby insuring it's legislative control over the majority and huge access to lobbyists and their money. This census question is nothing but a power grab.
45
@kmgh Sure count everyone. No one is saying do not count non-citizens. But it is important to know how many are old, how many are young, how many male, how many children, AND how many citizens.
10
Is'nt that the purpose of the census to count all residents of America including legal residents, citizens, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, temporary residents, visitors and each and every human present in the USA in real time?
The supreme court should allow a citizenship question in the 2020 count because that is the legal voting population of the country. This information is critical to have as this is the population for which the elected officials are expected to serve and legislate laws for their protection, preservation and welfare. America is full and the mega cities of the US are bursting at the seams with traffic congestion, homelessness, poverty, pollution and breakdown of essential services. America cannot any longer be the magnet for migrants, refugees and cheap under served foreign labor who risk their lives and lose their dignity and rights when they migrate to the USA through its porous southern borders away from legal entry points.
Knowledge is power and as long as the citizenship question is not misused for ethnic, religious or racial cleansing of those entering the USA legally, whats not to like about the fairness of a question on the 2020 census. Are you a citizen of the USA? Yes or No. Without this simple question it will be a wasteful exercise in futility and we might just forget about doing it or if it is done to let the authorities know not to bother you as we would not be a sovereign nation if we are compelled to not answer a key question.
66
@Girish Kotwal The Constitution doesn't say count the "legal voting population" of the country - which at the time it was written excluded women, non-whites, non-landowners, non-Christians, and anyone under age 21. It says count everyone, as stated in your first paragraph.
87
@Girish Kotwal: you write "Knowledge is power and as long as the citizenship question is not misused for ethnic, religious or racial cleansing of those entering the USA legally, whats not to like about the fairness of a question on the 2020 census." How disingenuous! Of course it will be used for those purposes. By the way, America is decidedly not full. Do you read this paper during the week? Just last week there was a solidly referenced article about this very issue. Our population is aging, and pretty soon we won't have enough workers to support Social Security, or fill all the low skill and medium skill jobs needed to keep the economy humming.
30
@Girish Kotwal The Constitution is quite clear on who is to be counted, someone "resident", not a citizen or a voter. And in some countries physical presence, even as a tourist from abroad, on a specific day means you are counted. The legal voting population excludes millions of immigrants from all around the world as well as millions who entered without documents. Documented or not they all use fresh water, drive on highways, need housing, and otherwise draw on public services. So as someone who generates social statistics and is well aware a question on citizenship will depress census participation the only reason to add it is to deliberately distort management and allocation of resources.
25
There's a legitimate need to know how many people are here, legal or not. If we don't use the census, what would we use? Local alderman estimates? I know there's concern that this info will be shared with ICE. But A "72-Year Rule" prevents the public disclosure of personally identifiable information to any agency until 72 years after its collection. Only the individual named on the record can access the information before the 72-year period. Truthfully there's nothing wrong with asking about citizenship. Canada, Australia & many other U.S. allies do so. The U.S. asked about citizenship for 130 years — from 1820 to 1950 — as part of the decennial “short form” census and continued to do so in the “long form” survey through 2000. So why is the left up in arms over a question that should be relatively uncontroversial? Answer: Money and power. Democrats are worried that adding a citizenship question will dampen participation in the census by illegal immigrants, reducing the total population count in the Democratic-leaning cities where illegal immigrants are largely concentrated. Because census data is used to determine the distribution of federal funds, that could decrease the cities’ share of $675 billion a year in federal funding. And because census data is used to apportion congressional seats, the left fears that if illegal immigrants don’t participate it will shift power from Democratic cities to rural communities, which tend to vote Republican. At least be honest about this.
76
@Bill Brown - As you can see in my comment a few down from yours, Sweden does not "ask" about citizenship but does have a system that manages to keep track of its citizens pretty well.
The standard response to that statement here in reply land is: But Sweden is a small country.
My standard answer is so too are the independent "states of America". I am a New Englander by birth and often choose to compare Sweden with part of New England with the same size population.
Why don't you forget about left and right and just focus on what are the best ways to keep track of how many people are present in the country or subdivisions thereof.
Without a modern immigration policy all this discussion becomes almost meaningless.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com.
18
@Bill Brown..this is of course just another triple purposed Republican attempt at minority rule.
It is really on inspection, Evenwel v Abbott again..
4
@Bill Brown Ask any American Citizen of Japanese descent about how secret those results are and how sacrosanct that 72 year rule is. For the uninformed, at the beginning of WW2 we were sure that every citizen of Japanese descent was a spy for their home country. So the government raided the 1940 census, found all those with Japanese ancestry, and took them off to concentration camps for the duration of the war. Quite illegal, but nobody DARED complain because you would be aiding and abetting the enemy. In wartime, you are not allowed to point out such things.
10
What's the chance the Supreme Court will vote against the Citizenship question since they don't care about the constitution in many cases which is obvious by their rulings.
2
Why would legal aliens be intimidated by a question about citizenship on the census? It is understandable that illegal aliens will not want to draw attention to their illegal status because illegal aliens are not suppose to be in the United States in the first place.
Requiring aliens to disclose their citizenship status will work to decrease the enumerated population in liberal/Democratic Party states and reduce the representation of those states in the House of Representatives. This is an excellent strategy by the Trump Administration to lessen the political power of the "sanctuary states," by having those states loose Congresspersons and Federal funding based on population.
93
@John Quinn
You put your finger on the entire purpose in your second paragraph. As for "legal" vs. "illegal", often they are in the same family and they cannot be confident that ICE won't arrest and deport even those who are legal residents or citizens, because ICE is not very careful about such things. There are actual cases to prove it.
40
@John Quinn " Requiring aliens to disclose their citizenship status will work to decrease the enumerated population in liberal/Democratic Party states and reduce the representation of those states in the House of Representatives. " John, I don't think you're right on this. According to the Census Bureau, "Apportionment is the process of dividing the seats in the House of Representatives among the 50 states based on the population figures collected during the decennial census." The "population" is a headcount only, not a count of US citizens. That's the law now. Citizenship status has nothing to do with apportionment.
19
@John Quinn I think you may wrong here. The enumerated population is just that - a headcount. Citizenship doesn't affect the headcount.
12
"Mr. Ross has defended the citizenship question by arguing that the Justice Department needs the information to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Judge Furman rightfully called that rationale “pretextual” — the secretary searched for it after he had decided what he wanted."
I am still struggling to wrap my head around this.
Suppose I propose a parade to exhibit my unpopular political beliefs. Now suppose I am denied by the courts and I respond by quoting the First Amendment. At that point the judge tells me that I am again denied because I decided what I wanted and then searched for a rationale.
Is this judge, and the Times Editorial Board, serious?
1
The Founders wanted a periodic census. What did they mean by a census? Why was it not clearly defined? They all knew what they meant - count all the people.
This Easter recall that the men at the Constitutional Convention had been raised in a system of formal and/or informal education that used the Christian Bible as The fundamental textbook. Thus, they all knew what the Gospels meant by a Roman census: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. ... All went to their own towns to be registered." Luke 2.
If not all the world, then all the states should count each and every person there. This was not just about House representation, or about how to count slaves, or even about taxation. Augustus and wise rulers since have understood that principle. We need to know how many people are in the area we govern, whatever kind of people. It is not only representation. The Romans were an empire, no longer a Republic.
People are the economy. They are the consumers of products and of resources. They are the breeders. People vary enormously. If you do not know who you have, you can't know what to do with and for them or how best to do that.
Count the people here. Being is not a criminal act. Make address optional. Don't ask if they are citizens, ask what country they are citizens of. Keep INS/ICE out if it by law. If you don't count 3.5% (12MM of 329MM) the census is a failure.
1
I am not sure what the big deal is about asking whether you are a citizen or not. If you are a citizen, check YES, If not, check NO.
As long as the question is not about your LEGAL STATUS in the country, why would anyone wimp ou on a Citizenship Question?
The Editors are not thinking straight, are they?
6
@PiSonny They're thinking very straight. It wouldn't be a big deal if we had a government that was honest, trustworthy, and respected legal immigrants. Unfortunately, we don't.
1
it's obvious that including a citizenship question in our census would result in a more accurate population figure, even if illegals ignore the question.
2
@Stanley Gomez In what way will it make the count more accurate? That doesn't make a bit of sense.
1
I think we have to stop with the insulting slurs: "illegal immigrants", "undocumented immigrants", "immigrants", and just call these people "future citizens".
1
@areader. You’re joking, of course.
I'm a registered Democrat, and I have always voted for Democrats in the past federal elections. But fighting against this citizenship question on the census ballot seems like such a strange hill to die on, really. I cannot fully support what seems like a willful confusion between "immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants" (the former is used in place of the letter throughout the editorial). It is also a little bit difficult for me to take the argument ("citizenship question will result in under-counting of undocumented immigrants, because they will be afraid to participate in the census") - when, at other times, this same editorial board, and others on the liberal side of the debate, are telling me with straight faces that the undocumented immigrants overwhelmingly pay their taxes and otherwise live productive, law-abiding lives just like legal residents of the country... You can't make both of these arguments without being an utter hypocrite. You cannot claim that the same person is afraid to check the citizenship question box on the census form - while not being afraid at all to fill a far less anonymous tax form and put herself on the radar for some verifiable wrongdoing - not just being in the country illegally, but also for being illegally employed, etc.
And to be totally honest, I'm not a great fan of this bashful euphemism - "undocumented immigrants" that has quietly replaced the perfectly accurate term "illegal immigrants", either.
36
Maybe be just don't answer the question. Leave it blank. What happens then?
1
@Rosie Some people undoubtedly will leave it blank. But it will still have a chilling effect because some undoubtedly will fear leaving it blank would likewise implicate them in illegality.
1
So by this logic, you believe that a state like California should have the capability to puff up its political power in our Congress merely by encouraging and harboring more and more illegals?
7
@Jack Exactly. Mexico could theoretically take over the country by inside coup by flooding key states with illegals causing Congressional seats and other advantages to increase, and then using those advantages to influence immigration laws, etc. In other words, they could take over the U.S. by an inside coup which is exactly what they've been accomplishing more slowly for the last fifty years. If they didn't have the tremendous presence they have now, much of the political fighting associated with illegal immigration wouldn't even occur but they're population has become large enough that it's causing our elected officials to treat the voting bloc sympathetic to illegals as a key bloc and pursue their votes and interests ahead of collective U.S. Citizen's interests which has always been damaged by illegal immigration. We're twice over natural resource carrying capacity now in some areas which causes us to be net purchasers in the global market and ripe for exploitation. Every time illegals come into the country, they displace U.S. Citizens out of jobs, increase government support expenses, and make the population size more unsupportable. That drives the welfare of lawful U.S. Citizen further down below a healthy level. That isn't my opinion alone, it was the opinion of the 1972 Rockefeller Commission on Population who warned us of illegal immigration and population increases when the country was half it's current size.
3
Representative democracy? Don’t make me laugh...
3
It's ludicrous to accept an estimate of what the 'undercounted' would be based on assumptions about which households would refuse to participate.
It's also ludicrous to apportion congressional representation based on non-citizens- but it's a Democrat dream come true, since they support illegal immigration for just that reason.
Shameful.
7
No format that demonstrably suppresses census participation should be permissible. Likewise, no sampling method that demonstrably disenfranchises US citizens’ rights to proportional representation in federal government should be tolerated. Each side needs empirical data to demonstrate actual harm to win the argument. This means the question will need to be included to study the effects. In the meantime, Gov’t must implement data handling practices to strip identifying data from census responses, particularly those of persons without status, before furnishing the information to any other agencies or third parties. In addition, they must criminalize unauthorized sharing and use of census data for any law enforcement purposes. The funding and the representation are separate issues.
2
A typical argument against asking the citizenship question on census form is that a resultant undercount would deprive states of their fair share of federal funding. However, the decennial census is no longer used to allocated federal funds. The Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey is issued to allocate federal funds. The decennial census is inadequate because population demographics change too rapidly.
4
I’m tired of the argument that voter suppression or inaccurate census results are so meaningful. Both parties make claims favoring their own agenda. Why doesn’t the government investigate the millions of tax returns that use ID numbers instead of Social Security numbers? Why doesn’t the government enforce E-Verify and prosecute employers who hire people working in America illegally? Why are cities and states hiding people here illegally, most who have committed crimes? The census is intended to get an accurate count of people, and where they live. Why is there such an effort to protect the accuracy of people who live here illegally? Wouldn’t the better course be to remove the people here illegally? The extent politicians go out of their way to avoid existing laws to protect people here illegally is reckless. Enforce the existing laws or change them. Ignoring the laws is shameful. Fighting over the accuracy of a census based on protecting people here illegally is a joke.
12
Everyone should be counted, and the citizenship question should be on the census.
The people against the citizenship question are people who are afraid "awkward" truths might be exposed -that there are far more illegals than anyone suspects, that many of them vote, that they present a large enough problem in many ways that we MUST deal with this issue, rather than kicking the can down the road yet again.
9
@Decent Guy
It's not up to the census to "deal" with this issue. We know the issue, and cities and towns know the counts. This question's intent, based on the actions and current rhetoric of this White House, is expressly for the federal deportation of all non-citizens. It's a bait and switch. None of the citizenship questions will be used for counting; only for deporting. Census returns are always ridiculously low, and adjustments in the counts are made every year. This question is no different than asking us all to count beans, never make a typo on a voter registration form, or pay for a driver's license from your nursing home, in order to vote. It's entire purpose is intimidation, not participation. The Republican Party wins when the rest of us do not participate, and hence the issue before the Supreme Court. They will add the question based on some nonsense rationale, but, in reality, no one will check the box. Why should they? I am not checking the citizen/non-citizen box, and no one else should either. We are all next...
1
@Decent Guy The purpose of the census is not to expose "awkward truths." Its purpose is to count how many people are here, legally or otherwise. The citizenship question was removed because it was clearly interfering with that purpose.
1
@Decent Guy what evidence do you have that any illegals vote. No one has been able to provide any credible evidence that they do. The face the conservatives are steadily loosing numbers across the country does not mean that people are flooding this country and voting liberal. It mans that conservative ideas are not as popular as they used to be. Study after study says not only that illegals don't/can't vote but tthe majority of people who can vote don't actually bother to do to.
1
The Supreme Court will rule the Census Bureau can add the citizenship questions to future census forms. The Census Bureau has asked the question on census forms many times. It was last asked in the 2000 census when it appeared on the long from. If asking the citizenship question on pervious census forms did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 when it was asked on the 1950 census, how could asking it on the 2020 census form violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Besides, the argument that counting the number of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional is is preposterous. The Constitution excludes noncitizens from the census count. Article, Section 2 calls for a count of all “free persons” because all free persons, at the time, were citizens by virtue of residency. It excludes slaves and Indians not taxed from the census count because they were not citizens.
Slaves were enumerated separately from the census on “slave schedules” while Indian agents provided estimates of tribal populations. The census began counting Native Americans only when the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens. If the United States still had slaves, they would not counted because they would be specifically excluded from the census because they would not be citizens.
3
@William Case, you would do well with actually learning something about constitutional law. The Supreme Court made it clear in Evenwel v Abbot that voting eligibility is not a requisite for apportionment.
1
Citizenship data is critical to fairly determining Congressional and state legislative districts. When a state determines the geography of its congressional districts (and state legislative districts) every potential voter should have an equal say in determining their elected representatives across the state. That means, a near equal number of potential voters in each district.
However, states don’t have the necessary census data on citizenship to allow districts to be fairly drawn. While the US Census Bureau’s annual sampled census - the American Community Survey (ACS) asks about citizenship, the sample size is not large enough to know which streets should define district boundaries. So districts today in effect, make the extremely inaccurate assumption that the number of eligible voters are exactly the same proportion of the population throughout a state. This means a voter in a district with few non-citizens has less representation in the legislature than a voter in a district with many non-citizens.
When states attempted to estimate eligible voters in districts when defining districts, courts have struct down the effort because the available data was not detailed enough to draw street by street boundaries.
Having a citizenship question in the census would provide the necessary detail for legislative districts to be drawn so eligible voters have a close to equal say in legislative representation and this would further compliance with Federal voting laws.
4
@Richard P M. You are wrong. see Evenwel v Abbot
2020 presidential elections will be a clear choice between candidates who want to represent the citizens of the USA and those who want to represent legal and illegal residents of the USA. Those who don't want to tinker with the current medicare system for all American, 65 and above who have contributed to medicare tax most of their lives and those who want to make Medicare for all ages and abolish our world class private health care system. It will be a choice between those who want all citizens of the US along with all residents in categories and those who want a count of all of America.
2020 will be a historic election that will be about issues and not about the presidential candidates. It will clearly define the America that they would like to see in the future.
6
Art I Sec 2 states that whole numbers of "persons" shall be counted and specific categories are excluded. Furthermore , elsewhere in that section qualifications for Representatives are made which include 7 years residency in the US , 25 years of age and a CITIZEN. Clearly the intent of the Founders were to include all "free persons" to be counted.
It is clear that strict constructionists where they wish to expand the Constitution , such as gun rights in the 2nd Amendment, construe the Constitution not as a literal document but as a partisan one.
2
The headline, Will the Census count all of America?
Of course not. And, it's not just because there are people who are afraid to fill it out because they are not here legally.
I have had a driver's license and been registered to vote and filed tax returns for about 40 years. I was not hiding. I have never received a Census form or had anyone call me or show up at my door with a Census form. And, yes, people do get paid to be Census takers, and go door to door. I have friends who do that, for extra money.
I doubt that I am the only person who has never been included in the Census. So, there cannot possibly be anything accurate about the Census, and this citizenship controversy is nothing more than trying to locate "illegals."
3
It seems to me that most people in the US at the time of its founding, were citizens, so there was no reason to state that the census was only of citizens, or that there was a need to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. If there is a need to add a citizenship question, shouldn't it be the decision of Congress to change the law to include that. I suspect, that the Supreme Court may choose to defer a decision on this and hand it off to the Congress, where it belongs.
3
@GF from ABQ. If you leave it to congress then nothing will get done. Best is for the supreme court to decide promptly before the end of this year.
1
A question about citizenship need not replace the question about residency. Just as the census asks a variety of demographic questions of each resident (age, sex, marital status, education, occupation, etc.), knowing the status of residents’ citizenship will help policymakers better understand how to more effectively and efficiently allocated scares resources to serve everyone residing here. Currently it is not known with any precision how many residents are here illegally, nor where they are, or how long they have been here. Meanwhile, we fail to target resources to deal with both the benefits as well as the problems posed by a growing segment of our population.
4
Of course the census not being perfect won't count every individual. In fact i disagree with any attempt to estimate those that will be missed, or extensive and expensive things to attempt to count every individual. If some won't respond due to the question being on their, they don't understand properly. I object to all those questions other than counting that they ask.
1
To all of the commenters who think asking the citizenship question on the census questionnaire is appropriate and somehow useful for determining voting qualification:
* The states determine who may or may not vote.
* It is illegal (13 USC) for anyone to disclose any information identifying an individual or business. That includes disclosure to other federal agencies, to law enforcement officials, or to state or local officials or agencies. Period. End of.
The census *cannot* be used in the way you want it to be used. The only purposes of the Trump-Ross attempt to include this question are to harass and demonize immigrants -- with the intention of firing up reactionary and mean-spirited elements among our right-wing voters.
2
@Douglas
Of course Trump can use the census data to find and round up illegals and those with whom they live. Emergency, you know. Besides, who is gonna stop him, McConnell?
If the Supreme Court deems citizenship question violates the law, then the citizens will elect a congress that will change the law.
7
The law you want to change is the Constitution. You might want to review the process necessary to amend it, twice: Article 1 Section 2 and the 14th Amendment.
If you're too busy, I'll give you the reality-check answer: It's not going to happen.
1
What are people afraid of? If they're here legally they have nothing to fear and should be counted. If not, they have no standing on any part of our democracy.
18
@John S. Actually they should still be counted under the constitution, but unless they are sharing such information with ICE why would they care.
1
@John S.
there are many mixed-status families, where some people are U.S. citizens and others are undocumented immigrants. Most often children are U.S. citizens and their undocumented parents will not fill out the Census.
I was born in the US and I have lived here my whole life and I’m not going to answer the citizenship question. Does that mean I don’t get counted?
3
@YFJ
This appears to be a political move on the part of the Republicans but wait there's more. If all Democrats in a Republican district refused to answer that question won't it mean less federal funds for that district? Then the census itself becomes a football and a tool of the parties.
It means you are not counted as a citizen in the census, but your existence in the country is counted — if the Census does not get an answer out of you with their follow-up
The Democrats keep trying, one way or another, to lose my vote.
They should stop trying, because they’ve already lost it.
22
This is such a no-brainer and should never be allowed to become a political issue as everything else that Trump does.
WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WE HAVE LIVING HERE and we should know how many are not here legally, without specific identification. This would be simple were it not for the justified distrust of government, especially under Trump.
In order to provide necessary services, like schools and transportation, totals are necessary. If immigration policies are to be enacted accurately and fairly we also need to know exactly who is not here legally - no more Republican hyperbole and lies.
If there were a way to guarantee that accurate information would not be weaponized, I would be all for total accounting. Under the circumstances where ICE and Homeland are out of control under an insane boss, I cannot endorse this. We need an immediate change of governance to leaders that we can trust to do the right thing and not be the xenophobes that we now have.
This is YOUR government, not the one that I voted for!
4
@RealTRUTH, A person answering no to a question about citizenship is not necessarily in the country illegally.
2
Non-citizens have no right to representation in our government, and political parties should not be able to use them as a tool for their own gain, either.
Dont count them; deport them.
17
@Spook Except the constitution requires we count them all, if we don't like that the constitution can be changed, I agree it is needed.
4
@Spook
non-citizens also include legal permanent residents many on their way to become US citizens. Where did your ancestors come from?
2
I support asking the citizenship question. It was in the census previously and it should never have been removed. We need to know how many illegal aliens are floating in this country and right now we really have no accurate count.
17
@judyweller you will not get an accurate count, since illegal immigrants will simply not answer the census -- this will only result in an undercounting in the areas with the most immigrants -- in other words, blue states. It is a political tactic that doesn't actually have anything to do with immigration, only with general gerrymandering tactics. If you want to find out this information, then there needs to be a different way to get it, since answering the census is not mandatory (perhaps it should be? in some democratic countries it is)
@gus
So people who broke our laws to come here will break them again by refusing to answer the Census but that's ok with you? Why do you think they lack opportunity in their own country? Could it be because they don't follow the rules in thoses countries? No one does? So let's bring them all here and allow them to not follow OUR rules so they can live the American Dream? We become the Third World they don't become US when you allow that to occur.
1
@GregP I dom't allow that to happen. The mess we are in now with so many illegal aliens in the country if the fault of both paries, but lately chiefly the Democrats. Neither side seems truly interested in enforcing our immigration laws. And a series of past presidents have granted amnesties and have weakened out asylum laws. We need tp tighten up out asylum laws, make it easier to deport people.
But we need some count of how many illegal aliens we are dealing with. I wanjt the question asked as step in the right direction of getting some idea of the numbers involved.
"Under Title 13 of the U.S. Code, you can be fined up to $100 for refusing to complete a census form and $500 for answering questions falsely." We can start by enforcing Title 13. And failure to answer a question means you have not completed the form.
1
The citizenship question so desired by the administration has been revealed openly by those who want it added as an attempt to intimidate respondents and reduce the relative voting power of immigrant full states. This serves two purposes: it can in some cases identify illegals who can be deported and it will provide an incorrect assessment of our actual numbers and will leave the states to pick up any social costs associated with unwanted immigrants.
Of course, most of those people are in the larger, more populous and more liberal states which will, of course, pay more to the Fed’s, get less back from them and then have to cover the costs associated with this “unaccounted for” population. Republicans are always sharp to shift national costs to the states just as they shift social costs to individuals— Anything to spread around the cost burdens and privatize the profits.
The Court no doubt will intentionally “misunderstand” the Constitutional obligation to count everyone and will find the question perfectly reasonable. That’s the way right wing Conservatives think: Always Conserve Your Privilege First and worry about the Constitution afterwards.
22
@B. Rothman
The decennial census is no longer used to apportion federal funds to states. Today, the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey is used for this purpose.
2
Comment 2 about the Census Question
In my first submission I state unequivocally that I, a US citizen from birth, will not put a checkmark in an "Are you a US citizen" box if there is one, just as I will never put a checkmark in a "What is your race/ethnicity" box.
My basic reason is that both the US Immigration system and the US Census Bureau system are so hopelessly out of date that all the Census Bureau data show are that the US is in all too many ways somewhere back in the late 19th or early 20th century.
What the Congress should be discussing as concerns the census is replacing the "race-based" system with an "SES data-based" system.
The reasons for doing this are explained perfectly in the landmark book by former Census Director Kenneth Prewitt, "What Is Your Race? - The Census and Our Flawed Efforts to Classify Americans", published in 2013. No reason at all to make the system even more flawed by adding a citizenship question.
Even Charles Blow has awakened to the fact that self-designation by an American as black, white, Hispanic tells him or me almost nothing about that American.
Read Prewitt first, then on October 15 consider reading this book by the only Times columnist who actually has thought about the race box question:
Self-Portrait in Black and White: Unlearning Race
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
Race: Human
2
The more important question this SC will decide is whether the USA will continue to be governed by the rule of law. And, as usual, it's up to one man, in this case CJ Roberts. Trump appointees presumably know to back their Liege. Justice Thomas thinks slavery was ok b/c the Founding Fathers did. This wouldn't be the first time a GOP majority just changed our laws based on politics. They don't even pretend to give legal justification. Remember Citizen's United? Money talks...and now votes. I'm scared as usual.
1
Does it mean anything to be an actual citizen anymore?
11
@M To the IRS, yes.
4
Since the 2016 presidential election, the New York Times has raged against foreign meddling in U.S. election, but it wants to ensure foreign nationals residing—illegally or legally—in the United States are counted for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
The editorial board endorses “deriving” citizenship data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey because it knows the ACS cannot be used to allot seats in the House of Representatives. It doesn’t worry that asking the citizenship question on the ACS form would reduce responses, even though the ACS—not the decennial census—determines how federal and state funds are distributed each year.
In September, Yale University released a study that estimated the illegal immigrant population at 22.1 million. Homeland Security estimates the number of illegal immigrants at 12 million. In addition, about three million foreign nationals with permanent or temporary legal status resident in the United States.
If the Yale estimate is accurate, about 25 million noncitizens reside in the United States. They would generate more seats in the House of Representatives than the residents of any state except California and Texas.
If the Homeland Security estimate is correct, about 15 million noncitizens reside in the United States. They would generate more House seats than any state except California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
7
The first question I want to know is how many Americans are here and being divided up for representation -- not how many illegals. The Court should defer to the Executive and allow the question on citizenship. It's time for Americans to take America back.
2
“How dare a nation try to count it citizens, even if such a count might make criminals illegally living in that nation feel bad?” said no sane human ever.
12
"It's the Supreme Court, stupid."
That was one of the reminders charged to voters in the last election.
It should have included: "It's the Census, stupid."
The Census is the objective definition of who we are. It determines who counts and who doesn't. An inaccurate count will affect political representation, federal funding and services, designation of metropolitan areas, critical demographic information, infrastructure priorities, etc.
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) is Census data for a geographic area that not only guides federal and state decisions. It also is the foundation for corporate and commercial planning and investment. The Census tells us where healthcare is lacking, the number of schools and teachers we need, the location of senior homes, where and what sort of labor availability there is, etc. It's an MRI for the entire country.
Republicans view the Census with fear and dread. Every Census projects a decline in the GOP base and a rising tide of Democrats. A rigged Census that undercounts minorities is a key element of GOP voter suppression. No surprise Kris Kobach who spearheaded election rigging is implicated in this brazen attempt to skew the Census against Democrats.
There should be a non-partisan citizens commission created to monitor the upcoming Census.
With an administration that excels in deceit and dishonesty, there's no reason to trust their capacity or intent to do an accurate count.
7
@Yuri Asian yes the census is being used for these purposes, yet under the constitution it probably should not do so. The census is to count all residents for allocating the house, nothing else.
Come on guys! You know the GOP controlled Supreme Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, will give Trump exactly what he wants!
The perfect census for guys like Bannon would be one urban undercount for one rural over count.
1
Please stop calling illegals "Immigrants." I am an immigrant who came here legally and pay tax. The "illegals" live in the shadow and brock the law, don't pay tax because they don't have proper documents.
Many law were written in the eighteenth and nineteenth century where people could not take a flight, or a train to the Mexican border.
8
"Residents"? Oh no! The poor residents! This paper demands justice for the residents!
What a scream. If the Editorial Board must twist and qualify its words in vain effort to win a point, what does that tell us about their argument?
"Federal law protects the privacy of everyone who responds to the census. But that’s small comfort for immigrants and their families living in a climate of fear under President Trump."
The only climate of fear is the one promoted incessantly by this paper to further its unabashed advocacy for open borders and for the continued irresponsible presence of illegal aliens in our country.
Demonizing Trump has become poor sport lately. The majority of our citizens support his stands against illegal entry into our country, against the abuse of the H-1B visa system, and against the present abuse of the UN laws concerning refugees. That is something that Presidents Bush and Obama purposely overlooked until its abuse became intolerable to the American people. So long as this paper advocates the flouting of American laws by illegal aliens, so long may they expect Trump's support to continue.
8
Representational democracy. When was the last time that concept was accurately applied to U. S. citizens? I'm a born and bred New Yorker, but my answer to that question is an obscenity that cannot be printed here, unlike the daily obscenities emanating from the trump administration and McConnell's senate regularly reported by the NYT.
1
What you resist persists. It always comes down to "legal" vs. "illegal".
5
Since this question will be on the form—you have noticed that the current administration gets its way 95% of this time, haven’t you?—I think those of us who object and who are citizens should just answer the question , “no”. A few million unexpected and nonsensical negative responses ought to skew the results enough to make all the answers worthless.
Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution says to count all persons.
So does Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.
If only Nino Scalia were here to defend this attack on originalism! :rolleyes:
1
@Dave T. Correct, but the constitution does not require all those other questions either, so this one should be fine.
2
The 14th Amendment describes the Census for the States as "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed".
If 2/3 of the States or 2/3 of the Congress want to exclude other groups of "whole persons", then the process required by the US Constitution is a Constitutional Amendment.
Without a change to the 14th Amendment, the US Supreme Court would be writing new law, unsupported by the US Constitution, if it approves the Census' legal resident question. Either abide by the Constitution, or amend it properly.
2
@Richard The Supreme Court writes new law all the time...
Only republicans will be counted. The rest can eat cake.
1
Of course the real reason the NYT Editorial Board doesn't want any citizenship questions on the census is because it would reveal that the illegal immigrant population far exceeds the quaint and proverbial 11 million figure that has been cited for years. The real number is at least twice that, and if it were revealed it would bring immigration "reform" (read: amnesty) talk to a screeching halt as it should.
Let's put that question on the census. Let's find out what the real number of illegal immigrants is who are residing here, not paying a dime in income tax, using fake IDs, driving autos without drivers licenses or insurance and taking advantage of social services paid for by actual American citizens. What exactly are you afraid of?
10
"that’s small comfort for immigrants and their families living in a climate of fear under President Trump"
Once again the Times loves to mix legal and illegal immigrants together. This is probably purposely done to confuse the issue.
This is a not complicated. Legal immigrants who are here legally should be counted. Illegal immigrants (no they are not "undocumented") have knowingly broken the law to enter and stay in the country and should not be counted. They should be deported to their native country.
End of discussion.
12
Citizenship means a lot. Democrats who pack their populations with illegals for political advantage is corrupt. It mocks the efforts of those who toiled to immigrate by the rules to become citizens. It diminishes the standing of citizens, mocks the rule of law and should not be allowed to benefit localities where the ploy is played.
8
Why did the constitution call for everyone to be counted ? Not citizens or voters? Because the “Founding fathers “ wanted to count women, blacks and all bodies. A power grab for the south and west. Not a count of voters. A body count, for political power.
You could call it a count of need. How many bodies?
Should we change it?
As it enumerates congressional seats quite possibly. One “man” one vote LOL” man?”
Note Texas, Florida have probably the highest “ overcount” if you consider this a congressional census, not an mixed economic congressional one. Arizona, California, New Mexico follow.
Is it net a Republican “ power grab?” I am not sure as the states losing “population “ would be mixed, NY, Conn, Mass, New Jersey, Midwest probably all go up. Southwest , Florida, California and the South go down.
3
If you don't want to declare your citizenship maybe it's because you are hiding something. To be proud of your heritage as an American citizen should be your declaration of independence and not a loss of it. A little assimilation and gratitude might be good for your patriotic spirit unless you are denying the real reason you came to this great country.
8
Interesting title chosen primarily because citizens of Mexico are very obviously not Americans, which we use to mean American citizens.
2
I is only a bad count if people lie about their status. If you are illegal and living here you should say so.
4
You are, most likely knowingly, conflating 2 issues.
Of course the census can count everyone ("all persons"). But the reason to see who here is legally is because obviously federal money and representatives will be appointed based on that number, and not with the added value of illegal persons.
And stop mixing illegal and legal immigrants today. That is very dishonest.
5
Do you really trust the trump people with sensitive data?
I can’t think of anyplace at anytime that people who are illegals had influence on a government We should not start a new trend
5
It’s very clear if you’re not a legal citizen you shouldn’t be here.....period. That is the law and it’s not ambiguous..
6
Here’s another problem that will force an undercount: the sex question. Forcing a transgender or genderfluid person to identify their biological sex rather than having a gender question with at least 3 boxes will result in an inaccurate number of men and women in this country and possibly encourage genderfluid people to refuse to answer. Why the heck is nobody talking about that?
@Pam Jenkins And if they decline to answer that question they will still be counted.
This question was asked until 1950.
Somehow the Times fails to mention this.
Honesty about immigration is rare.
From everyone.
7
No person here illegally deserves representation in Congress.
9
The citizenship question on the census has only one purpose: an undercount designed to give Republicans a huge electoral advantage.
3
@George
You just confirmed what everyone knows. Democrats demand to count illegal aliens amongst our citizenry in order to skew the results...as an attempt to defeat...by deceit...the legitimate Citizenry who votes against them.
3
The Democrats don’t want the question to be included for the same reason!
2
If we are to ever have an intelligent discussion on what to do with our illegal alien situation, shouldn't we make a good faith attempt to determine what the size of the problem is?
10
I'm not persuaded that we have the "problem" you cite. If we do, however, it is entirely clear, as a matter of reasonably straightforward interpretation of our Constitution, that the census is not an appropriate tool for addressing it.
@Douglas It's always a good idea to learn about a problem before trying to fix it. This may not be an issue in more sparsely populated areas if the country but it is a huge issue where I live.
4
I've been arguing, for a long time, that we should be teaching geography in our schools.
The population of the Twin Cities metro area (here in "sparsely-populated America) is about 3.3 million.
Don't fill it out..........you will/can be fined no more then 100$ if they figure it out. Same for lying on it.
1
"By the bureau’s own, nonpartisan analysis, adding a citizenship question to the “short form” that will go to every household in America in 2020 could result in an undercount of 6.5 million people"
Going here: https://www.census.gov/popclock/ you learn the undercount would be 1.9%
What government agency to you know functions at 98% accuracy?
Even without the citizenship question, how many 'headofhousehold' recipients receiving the short form in their name at their address will accurately report illegals living there.
20%?
Much ado about nothing; ask the question.
1
Seems like a fair question to ask people anonymously. Why can't you honestly tell your readers why you oppose this?
11
I’d be surprised if whites are accurately counted. White lives don’t matter. White lives don’t count. And federal aid will not show up in a district if the wrong color, white, is represented.
2
Not only has the citizenship question been used before, but frankly it's omission would badly harm our nation's representative democracy. To be frank, illegal immigrants who willingly violate our laws, disrespect our country, it's citizens, and our democracy and the laws that have been democratically established.
I very much doubt that our founders understanding of Democracy was t to reward those cities and states that most blatantly encourage violations of our immigration law by becoming sanctuary states and cities to thwart the efforts of the federal government. In fact, the very idea of rewarding those regions with extra cash and representatives, for behavior that verges on treasonous, is offensive. Foreigners who are in our country illegal have no more right to influence our government than Trump's Russian buddies do.
Furthermore, there's no tangible evidence that immigrants have anything to fear from answering the citizenship question. Not only is use of the data restricted so ICE cannot access it, but indicating that one is not a citizen is not the same as indicating that one is an illegal immigrant. There are many forms of legal residency ranging from permanent (greencard) to various visas and special statuses.
Lastly, let us put to bed once and for all the nonsensical idea that immigrants pay taxes. If they're afraid to fill out a census form, it's ludicrous to think they're comfortably providing the information in a W2 while also giving money to the government.
11
What will happen if we have a #dontcheckthatbox movement if the USCB adds a citizen box?
I have already declared here today that if there is a citizen box I will not check it and encourage everybody else to do the same.
Do not see that question raised anywhere.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.comj
Citizen US SE
2
@Larry Lundgren How do Swedes know their own population count? Surely you consider that a violation of human rights?
3
as usual for people in the liberal bubble they have distorted and politicized a useful tool. Of course the census can ask any questions as directed.
The census is a perfect vehicle for identifying illegal aliens, other criminals and child support fugitives among just a few uses.
5
My grandmother was a illegal alien and voter in every election from the time she was 21 until she dies at 72.
1
@Hooey
And she should have been deported. Voting while illegal is tantamount to spitting in the eye of every legal citizen.
2
There is nothing wrong with asking questions. There is nothing racist it about it either. Liberals just hate any anything that demands honesty and personal responsibility. You would rather bend the rules and make excuses for your misplaced moral code and personal beliefs. The fact is illegal immigrants are here illegally and should not be here. Period. End of story.
7
Who gets to be counted? Since the numbers are tied to our country’s electoral districts, voting rights, and $billions in federal funding allocations, ONLY CITIZENS should be counted!
We have over 20 million illegal foreign nationals residing in this country and tens of thousands more on the way, month after month. They’re already exploiting our public services, schools, hospitals, labor market, and birthright citizenship laws....costing taxpayers $Billions every year.
Who in their right mind would allow foreign nationals and illegal aliens to dictate our electoral process and how our taxpayer dollars are spent??? Let me guess.....
7
@Michal I think you're missing the point. We need to know how many illegal residents there are.
1
the NYT editorial position as usual smacks of liberal bias. The Executive branch wants to simply add a question to the census form. That's it. If some one is here because they followed the Rules and and didn't jump the line, then they can and should answer the question. If they are here illegally because they didn't follow the rules and jumped the line, isn't it important that the Government knows how many people live here who didnt follow the rules? It is unbelievable that the NYT wants to block a question because people here illegally wouldn't want to answer it and therefore the question shouldnt be asked. Utterly ridiculous!
8
Just to show you how far unmoored we are from our Constitution, the radical progressive left is actually arguing we need to count illegal aliens in our census. Why do they want illegals counted? It gives them more bodies in their leftist districts, which means more reps in Congress, and more federal funds.
They disgust me.
7
Why does anyone think that an undocumented individual who is afraid they will be outed by answering whether or not they are a citizen will comply with the census in any event?
2
The NYT now omits even the word "undocumented" from descriptions. Now it's just "immigrants".
5
@areader
People are people, they should all have the same rights.
@Fourteen14,
Exactly! Why use the term "citizens" at all?
For the record, I don't think the citizenship question should be asked during the census.
But, a lot of what Trump, in his nuttiness, does is legal, if outrageous. This is denied by millions of the Resistance.
At the drop of a hat, they are prepared to pontificate about laws and decades-long legal discussions about which they know little.
ln their ignorance of the issues, on what do they base the certainty that they know the truth? What comes to mind is:
1) Mistaking the Bull in the China Shop for Hitler, they believe that Trump is so evil that everything he does must be illegal.
2) Reaching out to all of humanity, except for Midwesterners and Russians, they contrast their upright morality with Trump's depravity, and conclude that their cause must be the legal one.
Not so. The Blue side is quite tarnished by bad laws too.
A bunch are the work of B. Clinton, with H. Clinton present. For example:
*** Death Penalty Act---guts habeas corpus rights, speeds up executions;
*** NAFTA---vicious, because without compensation for obvious victims, ie Midwest industrial workers (with compensation, it would have been a wonderful law);
*** Religious Freedom Act---forget contraceptives from work insurance (Hobby House case);
*** Crime Act---three strikes means life in prison; more prisons.
In this season of Blue hysteria, Clinton's sins don't count.
We have two echo chambers, not one.
3
@alyosha
To think that the blue Echo chamber is equivalent to the red Echo chamber is pedestrian thinking. It is false equivalence. This indicates an inability to discriminate between more or less of the same thing. The result is poor judgement.
1
It would be fairly hard to characterize me as big supporter of Donald Trump, but I'm really having a hard time summoning the appropriate "woke" outrage about having a question like that on the census.
I had always assumed, apparently mistakenly, that anybody filling out a census "was" assumed to be a citizen by definition, and that people here illegally were not entitled or expected to complete it. Indeed, it would be surprising to me that people here illegally would even want to fill it out.
This whole thing smells like a red herring to me.
7
Yes, your assumption was incorrect. As the first sentence of this editorial says, the constitutional requirement is for an "actual Enumeration" of all individuals resident in the US. Since 1790, census takers have been required to take an oath verifying that they will make a "perfect, actual count" of all individuals.
The key purpose of the constitutional requirement is to support the principle behind the popular slogan, "No taxation without representation."
As a reminder (which shouldn't be necessary but always is, in these discussions), virtually everyone in our society pays taxes, citizen or not and regardless of immigration status.
The census was never meant to be weaponized by xenophobes, racists and immigration extremists.
2
@JayK The problem is that by not including non citizens who live in the US the federal government will underfund money sent to those states, money used to support things like education, emergency response,... what have you.
1
@JayK
The thing is, JayK, people come. They come and they work and pay payroll taxes and sales taxes and need housing and open small businesses and have babies and pick spinach under grueling circumstances and use the sewage and infrastructure systems and raise the children of professionals and businesses employ them because they're cheap labor. And you can argue whether our economy and lives would work much if these people were not here. Personally, I think not.
Let me say also the US takes fewer refugees than most Western democracies, and this century will be the century of refugees and immigrants, especially when climate change takes hold.
OK. Now. These people are here. They contribute, yes, and they also use services. They get ill. They get attacked. They need hospitals, police, child care and schooling.
So what this administration wants to do is take money from districts and states who need that money for services for their people. Because. JayK. These people are here. And. JayK. These people are not going away. And these people, JayK, are people.
1
Being a US citizen, you are eligible to vote in the presidential election. If not, you are unqualified to vote. Citizenship question thus should be a vital part in the census survey. Otherwise, federal government will have misrepresentation and wrong funding to each states. Using privacy to omit the question in the survey is an attack to the democratic process.
8
To me, there are two logically consistent positions on this issue.
First, and most in line with the current practice, whatever the Census Bureau wants to ask, they can, as long as the privacy of individual responses is kept and numbers are reported only in the aggregate.
Second, and this is all the Constitution calls for, just count people and do not ask for anything else. This should be the position of the strict constructionist crowd.
Any middle ground gets into the absurdest area of saying the Bureau may ask questions that some people approve of, but not others approved of by other groups.
3
While that seems fair enough, the problem is that the professionals and academics who understand the matter best—not the political types, the experts—say that that question will distort the count, because it’ll increase the number of people who won’t respond, and increase them in uncertain ways.
The people injected politics into this are right-wingers, who don’t seem to want an accurate count. And who in this way and others, are making it clear that they want minorities disenfranchised and immigrants of all kinds intimidated.
YOU guys created this problem, not us lib’ruls. YOU injected politics into the census, and now want to pretend neutrality and objectivity. Sorry, boat sailed.
@Robert Just like those experts said that Trump had no path to being president. Nobody is an expert on what humans might do under some circumstances, if they were they would be very rich.
If it’s on the census, can’t that question just be skipped?
1
5-4 decision in favor of the question. Although it is hornbook law that factual findings are affirmed on appeal unless "clearly erroneous", the Supreme Court, an adjunct of the Republican National Committee, will find them to be "clearly erroneous."
3
What’s the point? Exclude illegal immigrants from the count? So some communities will get less funding for roads and fire protection etc by undercounting the actual number of people living there? Won’t that hurt everyone?
5
@YFJ--That's the point. Trump wants to use the census as a way to to punish the states with the most illegal immigrants. He wants their congressional representation to be affected. Trump does not consider himself president of all Americans, therefore if residents of blue states receive less funding for essential services it makes no difference to him. Nothing is neutral for Trump. Everything is looked at through the prism of loyalty to him. Red states are loyal, so they deserve more. Blue states are disloyal, so they deserve less. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will go along with Trump's skewed delusions.
5
@YFJ It wont hurt them as much as allowing rampant increases in population. Get the illegals out, and work on reducing the number of humans generally. That leaves more resources for everyone.
2
@MS. Pea,
We are a nation of laws and no community should benefit from subjectively ignoring them.
If they desire to be a sanctuary city or state then it’s their privilege to pay for it as well. What is most disturbing is that the decision to be a sanctuary city or state is not voted on by the citizens of that community. When millions of dollars are spent to aid illegal immigrants, it is at the expense of others. We have issues with homelessness, opioid addiction, veterans not receiving proper medical care, etc.... yet dedicating funds to illegal immigrate takes president over other equally important needs?
This is not Trumps doing but it landed in his lap.
4
Article XIV
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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The 14th amendment makes clear that people who do not have the right to vote do not get counted. Much is made of the words "counting the whole number of persons in each State" but nothing is said about "and citizens of the United States." The intent is clear, only citizens should be counted. Which is why the question of who is a citizen is defined as "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
8
@mingsphinx Weren't women and children counted in the first census even though they couldn't vote? Aren't children counted today even though they don't vote? The purpose of the census is also to determine how many people there are.
6
Serious questions: What is wrong in asking somebody if they are a citizen? And why should people who are not legal citizens be entitled to representation in the legislature? Democrats protect illegal immigration in the same way that Republicans protect gun rights. Every little battle is treated like it decides the broader war and never give an inch of ground. It's as unreasonable for Democrats to approach illegal immigration in this way as it is for Republicans to do the same on gun control. Both sides are wrong and disingenuous on their respective issues.
20
1. The object of the census is not to count citizens, but, “persons.”
2. The concern is that fewer persona will respond, which appears to be the right-wing desire.
3
@Ryan. Because non citizens use resources whether you like it or not. Roads, hospitals, law enforcement, public transportation etc.
and the rest of us need those resources to be funded.
Americans love to attack illegal immigrants despite being perfectly ok with hiring them and using them for cheap labor (For example at Trump golf courses).
This is yet another shameless attempt to shift power and money to red America (think recent tax bill).
1
@Ryan
In Article I, Section 2, the US Constitution requires that we count 'all persons.'
Additionally, you can find this requirement to count all persons in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.
So much for the incessant blather about 'originalism.'
From the comments, I see that many people believe that undocumented immigrants live only in "blue" urban areas. They might be surprised to discover that many are employed in farming or meatpacking in rural states. In a lower-population state, losing them in the count will actually have more impact than in high-pop states. An undercount may well cost these states federal representation and funds. You can't punish blue states without punishing red ones.
11
@Naomi So long as punishment is imposed for the use of illegal immigrant labor, I am down with that regardless of where it is.
3
When referring to immigrants “living in fear” you really should clarify which types of immigrants. Legal immigrants do not live in fear. Non-legal immigrants may. For that matter anyone who is broken a law also may live in fear of the authorities who are enforcing law.
17
@Anthony
If illegal undocumented immigrants are living in fear, then you, too, should be living in fear.
If the question is asked, I plan to ignore it even though I am a citizen. Will my response be discarded?
5
Yes if you are foolish enough to do so. But I bet you will check the box.
Do you think non-citizens should have the right to vote?
2
@Greg Maybe it will be considered as indicating you are not a legal residents of the US. That might not be your intent.
Obviously illegal immigrants weren’t intended to be included in the census. To suggest otherwise is silly and would require we include the members of an occupying army. Imagine trying to tell the French in WWII that for government resource allocation purposes that apportionment should include the forces on the beaches of Normandy and invading Germans from the East.
17
As far as I know, people are not taking a lie detector test. What would stop someone from saying affirmatively they are a citizen? Are we asking for birth certificates?
5
The citizenship question should definitely be included. The census is intended to count American citizens not foreigners who ever they are.
9
The 14th amendment specifically states that the census count "the whole number of persons.." It does not say count only citizens. So how do you assume to know that it was intended to count only citizens when it plainly does not say that?
5
It might help if those who write would consider using the terminology provided by the UN IOM at
https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms
The term illegal immigrant does not appear there except in a sentence under Irregular Migration that notes that the term is most often used, perhaps outside the US, for victims of trafficking.
Since no consistent terminology is used in the New York Times as far as I can tell and certainly not by Trump and company the whole discusssion of citizenship registration rests on ground as swampy as the kind Trump refers to.
Sweden was flooded in 2015 and 2016 with people fleeing war, death, and even climate change. All these people were seen as asylsökande, using the UN term, asylum seekers. The total in each year was greater per 100,000 permanent Swedish residents than in any other European country and, for the main groups - Somalis, Syrians, Kurds, Afghans - probably greater than for even the USA per 100,000.
Each asylum seeker entered an evaluation process that could end by them being granted residence or by rejection.
It is evident that the Trump administration follows no system and maybe no laws down there along the southern border.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
3
If not rejected by the Supreme Court, the surreptitious insertion of the citizenship question into the census count will certainly turn the US into a segregated racist society where the citizens and aliens will be picked at will and the system of reward and punishment will be dispensed accordingly by the powers-that-be.
1
Legal immigrants don’t have a problem answering a question about citizenship. I am one of them. None of the legal immigrants I know, and I know a lot of them, have an objection. It is absurd for a democracy NOT to know how many residents are citizens. According to NYT, about a thousand immigrants enter the US illegally or as asylum seekers EVERY DAY!
3
@Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma You may be projecting issues with various demographics onto the US. This is different.
2
If you are not a legal citizen of this country than you should not have a vote in any election. Just the same as we legal residents have no votes in Canada’s or Mexico’s elections.
The further deterioration of our sovereignty is not debatable and will not happen under this administrations watch.
16
Once again the Supreme Court reveals its bias. This Branch of our Government is more dangerous and corrupt than Trumpland.
1
How so? They have yet to rule on the issue. We know all liberals on the court will vote in lock step on the issue (which is apparently okay if you are a NYT reader); the question is whether the conservative wing will do the same (which would not be okay). Since the swing vote always seems to be a conservative that must mean conservatives are the most open minded on the court, huh?
2
Allowing illegal aliens to be counted is in effect an underhanded way to devalue the value of the votes of real American citizens, taxpayers and those who must register for military service. Why would do Democrats want to do that? It is because it allows greater political access to Congress without having to have a broader appeal and tor o attempt to reach voters outside Democrat strongholds and the sink hole of left wing ideology and to win actual elections. That also explains why the Democrat Party seems to be more interested in the welfare of illegal aliens than in the interests of Americans or our national security.
17
@antonio gomez. All due respect to Mr “Kansas”, New Yorkers votes are devalued every single election by our asinine electoral college and Underrepresentation in the Senate (which then tips the scales on the Supreme Court). You have got to be kidding me complaining about “devaluing” the vote.
Again, the NYTimes editorial board opines with intentional misdirection. It is reasonable and useful to ask about citizenship on a national census. The taking of the census is an expensive endeavor and should be as comprehensive as reasonably possible.
The fearmongering being spread by the NYTimes that a response to a citizenship question would be used to persecute immigrants is wholly dishonest.
10
Fair enough, so what IS the reason to ask the question?
@YFJ
So that the data can be used for decision making and policy changes as appropriate.
Perhaps it would make sense to allocate immigration resources based on the data.
1
For Ross et al to argue that this is to enforce the Voting Rights Act, when we can be assured that they wish there was no such Act at all, is laughable, and SCOTUS will be as well if they buy this hogwash.
1
I expect the Republican operatives installed on the court by Bush and Trump will allow the question.
1
I expect the liberal operatives appointed by Clinton and Obama to vote in lock step, like they almost always do. The inability of the left wing on the court to apply the law instead of reverse engineering legal decisions they reached in granting cert absolutely sickens me.
3
Im sorry (not really sorry as its not my fault) but far too many of the citizens I know, couldn't pass the citizenship test, or make it thru an elementary school history exam. Likely couldn't find their own town on an unmarked map. Maybe not even the country...
If citizenship is our metric of any sort of qualification for anything...then we need to re-qualify a whole lotta people! Cause a whole lot of "citizens" dont know squat about their own nation.
I want Trump to have to take and pass (90%+) a high school regents history exam, so he can vote next time.
2
The illegal aliens, that are here illegally, will refuse to participate in the census, which is mandatory, if they are asked about citizenship. How nice.
Having refused to participate in the census should be a disqualifier for anyone seeking legal status in the future.
The practice of ballooning up the numbers of illegal aliens to increase the representative power and the amount of federal largesse received by the sanctuary cities and states must end.
No federal monies or number of representatives will be apportioned for people here illegally.
Given that California is estimated to be 40% illegals, get ready for an overdue realignment of political power.
10
One of my children, as an enumerator for the last census found this to be the case anyway. Plus, many legal residents would avoid answering the census.
This is no reason to stop asking questions.
It is reason for better publicity and PR work to get compliance numbers as high as possible.
1
@Ken. For someone who gets 2 Senators to represent less people than live in my apartment building in NY, I find it fascinating that you believe there should be even further underrepresentation of states where people actually live.
With Trump, even demography is a political weapon.
Hogwash! "Adding a citizenship question... to the 2020 census could result in an undercount..." So? What's the harm done?
6
The census has long sought all sorts of information beyond the “enumeration” called for by the constitution. Race for example is very personal information with no constitutional or legal validity. Tribal membership is of legal significance to the federal government. Native American race is not.
Citizenship status is clearly of legal significance to the federal government. If we are going to seek any information beyond a simple enumeration, then this question is more relevant than the basic constitutional functions of government than many others. Some people find the census intrusive because of the questions that are not being challenged and either refuse to respond or only partially complete the form. In my entire adult life I have never fully completed the form and they have never come looking.
Why should this question be any difference. Why is it so much more important to Democrats that illegal aliens in California feel safe completing the census while off-grid libertarians in Arkansas has never been a concern? The answer is obvious. All issues are a cover for the one issue that matters in politics: power.
30
@KBronson
I think intent matters. What question was added to the census to intentionally suppress the count for off-grid libertarians in Arkansas? True libertarians wouldn't subject themselves enumeration at all. The existence of a survey is anathema to their political beliefs in general. However, the Constitution requires some sort of census. There's nothing explicitly targeting libertarians.
Not so with the citizenship question. The Trump administration has made clear in no uncertain terms their desired effect is to reduce the census count among immigrant populations. Even legal immigrant citizens and their children. That makes a considerable difference in how we evaluate the constitutional appropriateness of the question.
7
This question will produce population data such as race and citizenship status for 11 million census block. That data will then be used in 2022 to create legislative that equalize US citizens not total population.
This was the administration’s intent all along.
Wake up.
1
In reply to Molly4
" If we counted only residents we would overlook the thousands of US citizens who are currently homeless."
I think you misinterpret the meaning of the word residents in this case. It does not refer to residing at a particular address, but residing in the country (legally).
You write, "But that’s small comfort for immigrants and their families living in a climate of fear under President Trump."
Legal immigrants don't live in fear.
Illegal immigrants live in fear.
This difference IS the issue.
10
If the GOP plan is to further punish the great state of California, as was done with the recent tax gift to the wealthy, by reducing our representation in the federal government, then I hope CA will have the courage to secede if need be. Newsom: I hope you are ready for a major pivot. Clarification: I am pretty right wing when it comes to illegal immigration; however, an accurate count of people who live here is a matter that is at the heart of our democracy and our immigrant heritage.
2
Is there any doubt as to how the Supreme Court will decide? The majority will show that they are on board with the GOP's multifacted strategy of voter suppression. This is a new millennium and a new country we are in.
1
Why do you think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were selected by right wing groups for the Supreme Court? Besides being safe votes against abortion, these two are reliable votes for adding the citizenship question to the Census.
2
"But that’s small comfort for immigrants and their families living in a climate of fear under President Trump. Bureau officials have for decades recognized that communities with significant immigrant populations are likely to be undercounted if there is a citizenship question on the census."
You're suggesting that because immigrants are afraid, they do not "get to be counted"? That is up to them. Having a question about citizenship in no way prevents them from answering the census, or from being counted as being present here.
If I claimed that I do not "get to be honest on my taxes" because I am "afraid" of how much I'll have to pay, I would be laughed at.
I am not a Republican, and often prefer immigrants as people to some Americans. But Democrats are wrong on this one and baldly so. This is not about hatred, it is about preventing the Democrats from continuing to create and foster a larger, poor, underclass that they can take advantage of and misuse for their political and economic gain, the Constitution.
Lastly, "living in a climate of fear under President Trump. Bureau officials have for decades recognized that communities with significant immigrant populations are likely to be undercounted if there is a citizenship question on the census."
So, Trump, as President, has been at this sort of intimidation for decades. Wow, I knew non New Yorker's were all ignorant yokels but I didn't realize how much of one I am. This is an exponentially bad job by you NYT.
4
If you’ve ever done any geological research using the US Census you will find the citizenship question is on many of them.
The most resent Census to be released was the 1940 Census as law requires 70 years after it was taken. The tally of Citizens and non-citizens is necessary. I’m sure the question are you an illegal alien will NOT be on it. It’s not a problem for legal residents. It’s a problem for the undocumented is what it is. And that means it’s a problem for the far left agenda. Include it I’d love to know how close we are to non-citizens outnumbering citizens in this country. Because that will bring us to the next item on the far left agenda, non-citizens being allowed to VOTE. And that is where is is going.
3
@Rob Geological research? How about rock solid nonsense?
"Three federal judges — in New York, California and Maryland..."
Well, we have the three bears, the three blind mice and the three stooges as well. The Supreme Court will rule that the Executive branch is well within its rights to add the question of citizenship to the US census.
2
The nation's democracy belongs to its citizens and no one else.
5
The funny thing is the undercount will occur in the Southern red states who will not benefit with extra congressional seats. The census counts "They include citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-citizen long-term visitors and undocumented immigrants."
Don't people understand the word "inaccurate"? As the article states, there are already methods in place to count number of non-citizens. The CENSUS should only be about how many people live here. If people really want to know how many illegal immigrants there are, we cannot have this question on the census. TRUMP does not want a valid count of All americans, non-citizens, and illegal citizens because then his FEAR mongering will have less weight.
1
the article fails to mention that the citizenship question has been on the census before, and there was no question of its constitutionality.
and it seems to me that a census should be capturing information about age, race, sex, citizenship — those sorts of things.
5
We don’t have a representative democracy now.
4
Non citizens should not be counted. Due process and equal protection require that citizens from states with fewer illegal aliens don’t have their rights diluted. Illegal aliens should not be counted. Only citizens have the right to vote and people here on tourist visas or who overstayed visas or who just walked in don’t matter. They have no rights to affect our choices nor do the rights of others increase because of their presence. We might as well count people in India as count non citizens. The question is necessary.
6
This was and is a calculated effort to show that trump was “tough on immigration”. He can say that before his presidency the number of Hispanic non citizens was X and after he was in office the number went down to X, ostensibly showing a decline. The damage is already done regardless of the Supreme Court ruling. If you were an undocumented Hispanic living in the US during this presidency, would you be honest on a survey from the government?
1
Always interesting to see which side of the argument the NYT will emphasize and which they will ignore.
First - most first world countries use a citizenship question on their census including our Northern neighbor Canada, Australia and Germany among others - the UN best practices for a national census list it as a good practice.
Part deux - two-thirds of Americans recognize its importance and support it on the upcoming census.
I guess if you cant argue historical precedent or citizen support you wave your hands and yell a great deal.
10
The word "profoundly" in this editorial's title is an exaggeration. The 11-12 million or so illegals make up less than 3.5% of the total population. Even in California it's around 5%. What is unknown is how many illegals will answer the census even if the question is omitted.
A useful study would be for the Census Bureau to compare a list of all persons deported in 2001 with the 2000 Census.
2
From long observation and experience, anything that Kris Kobach Of Kansas is involved with, is NOT good news for the public. It benefits only the GOP and Kobach.
Seriously.
2
The problem lies in the fundamental question of determining representation. Should representation in the House be based on a citizenship count or sheer numbers? If you include non citizens in the equation, are you not by default giving them representation? You would essentially be condoning an illegal act by including them in the census count. There in lies the problem.
5
Another tactic to divide and deny freedom. The Constitution unites and grants freedom. Next, party affiliation on the census will be a discriminator used to do the same things- divide and deny. The best tactic: don’t answer the question!
This is an important topic. The heart of the matter is a technical issue, whether or not Commerce Secretary Ross acted legally in accordance with Federal law, such as the Administrative Procedures Act in adding a question about citizenship. In this country, the word of law matters, which is, for example, why many of us object to Affirmative Action, which violates the language of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Though SCOTUS will likely decide this case on technical legal issues, the consequences of the decision will, as the editorial correctly points out, be far reaching. The most important is likely membership in the House of Representatives.
Why, then, does the Times write an incomplete and misleading editorial? Editorials are not news articles, so perhaps one shouldn't get too upset. But, surely the article should have noted that a citizenship question was indeed part of the census for most of this country's history; the 1960 census was the first to eliminate it. Also, the article states that immigrants live in fear under President Trump. This sentence is very misleading. Like almost all Americans, the President supports legal immigration. It is illegal immigration he objects to.
Personally, I think a full enumeration is what the founders of this country intended, and I think will be easier to achieve without a citizenship question.
But I also think the Times should not mislead readers, including in editorials.
3
Seems pretty obvious to me. The census was intended to count the number of citizens in the country. If you're not a citizen, you don't count toward to assignment of representatives to Congress.
11
@Mr. Moderate This 'obvious' opinion is not what you will find is the intent of the 14th Amendment which determines such matters. Read it in other comments here.
3
The 14th amendment to the US Constitution requires a count of ALL "whole number of persons in each state", not just citizens. The Trump administration's promise that asking such a question won't impact those who aren't citizens because they won't use the answers to alert immigration enforcement officers, suggests that they think respondents must also be Trump University graduates.
2
Power grab? Not really
Actually this is the reapportionment, surprised by California going up?
Impact of Non-Citizens on Apportionment. In a report entitled, "Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment," published by the Center for Immigration Studies in October of 2003, we calculated the impact of non-citizens on the distribution of seats in the House.5 Overall we found that the presence of non-citizens caused a total of nine seats to change hands. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each lost a seat that they had prior to the 2000 Census while Montana, Kentucky and Utah each failed to gain a seat they other wise would have gained, but for the presences non-citizens in other states. Of the nine seats redistributed by non-citizens, 6 went to California, while Texas, New York and Florida each gained a seat and New York retained a seat it otherwise would have lost. Analysis of this kind is very straightforward, involving a simple calculation of the apportionment of seats to states with non-citizens included and then without them. Other researchers have come to the same conclusion.
3
I note that in the beginning there were no illegal aliens. Every person that was here was either a citizen or a legal resident, or a slave, or an Indian. And the Constitution required that all persons, not Indians, be counted, except that slaves should be counted as only 3/5 of a person in order to limit the representation of the slave states and the power of the slaveholders in the Congress and the Electoral College. But I suspect that if there had been persons in the United States that were here illegally and therefore had an obligation to leave and could be deported when their illegal status was determined, the Constitution would have provided that those persons, like Indians, should not be counted or conversely the only persons that should be counted are citizens and legal residents and slaves . And to now hold that the Constitution that they drafted now prohibits us from excluding in some way illegal aliens from the count is an insult to the Founding Fathers.
To have a fair count of residents of this country, illegal aliens must be excluded because illegal aliens are not legal residents and therefore should not be considered residents at all, but trespassers.
3
I have grave concerns that the Administration will prevail given the current makeup of the Court.
1
The desire to include non-citizens in the Census count is an attempt by the urban elite to transform the U.S. into a third world country.
The elites have enough money to live, work and play in any corner of the globe, but they want the U.S. government to be responsible for the welfare of non-citizens.
How many NYT commentators have poor strangers living in their households?
Alas, they forget charity begins at home.
Calling for charity on someone else's dime is the hallmark of urban elite.
13
@Albela Shaitan
The "urban elite" didn't create the census rules. The Founders did, in an old elite document called the Constitution of the United States. If you have a problwm, take it up with them.
By the way, undocumented immigrants are employed in large numbers in rural states that rely on farming and meatpacking. In low-population states, not counting them will have a far greater impact than in high-pop areas. Be careful what you wish for.
3
@Naomi
The correct term is "illegal aliens."
I'm sure your respect for the constitution translates into a respect for laws, which means you are, like all right minded Americans, for deporting every single one of them.
You can't break the law by entering the U.S. illegally, demanding to live here.
The Rule of Law is the bedrock of a civil society.
I'm sure you'll agree!
4
@Albela Shaitan
The urban elite are the ones paying for that dime.
1
If the court allows the question, we citizens have the power to boycott that question. If large numbers of people refuse to answer it, we render that data point moot.
9
I agree, no reason to even answer the question. It would be questionable, litigable not to count the form. Who’s gong to prosecute not answering one or two questions?
1
It seems important to know how many "non-citizens" we have in this country by counting the citizens we do have.
5
@batazoid
Did you read the article? It points. out that those numbers are counted, just not in the main census.
3: 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.
Above is the relevant section of the U.S. Constitution requiring a census every ten years. Contrary to what the NYT editorial board claims, the Constitution actually explicitly excludes non-citizens who are by definition not free persons. The stated purpose of the decennial census is to apportion seats in the House of Representatives. Since non-citizens do not get to vote, they do not get counted.
It is amazing that the citizenship question is causing such difficulties. Equally intriguing is that no one, not even members of the so called far right, is arguing that asking if the respondent is a citizen is actually a fundamental constitutional requirement. The census, and by extension Congress, would be unconstitutional if non-free persons were enumerated.
4
@mingsphinx So you're conflating undocumented folks with slaves? OK.
If you believe that individual census data is protected from disclosure to other governmental agencies, or if you are a legal resident of the US, you should have no quarrel with answering the question of citizenship, which has nothing to do with immigration status.
The problem is, today almost no one believes the individual data will not be disclosed to the Trump administration.
4
Just the mere fact that Wilbur Ross had anything to do with the census and the insertion of the Citizenship question should make the Supreme Court suspicious of his involvement. He has proven himself to be as corrupt as Trump. But then I forgot who is sitting on the Supreme Court. Basically mostly ultra conservatives who do not care about Voting Rights, women's choices, Eminent Domain issues or Separation of Church and State, just to name a few issues that interfere with citizens freedoms.
Furthermore a lot of Citizens do not even answer the questions whenever a census is taken. So the numbers are not exactly accurate to begin with.
I know this because my sister used to collect Census Data for the Census Bureau every time one was taken. People would not answer door, calls, etc.
The Government should be working on improving the actual gathering of the data, not trying to the do the job of policing who and who is not a Citizen. They have another agency for that.
2
Correct me if I'm wrong:
1) The number of representatives for each state in the House is determined by its population of true citizens. Illegals are not citizens.
2) A major purpose of the census is to determine the number of citizens in each state.
The census should include a citizenship question and that status should then be verified.
17
@Michael When the Constitution was written there was no concept of undocumented folks. There were slaves and non-slaves.
@Michael No, you are completely wrong. Please carefully read other comments quoting the relevant parts of the 14th Amendment. Citizenship is not the determinant. Residence is. Only "Indians" are not part of the determination. Even enslaved persons counted for 3/5s of a free person...
4
@Michael
You need to read the Constitution. That isn't what it says.
It is easy to see why the parties split on this question, but the constitution says count everyone. There is no language in the constitution that says count only those you would like to be counted. The citizenship question will only skew the count.
8
@RFC The constitution did not anticipate the huge population of illegals currently living in the country.
3
Doubtless, the framers of the constitution did not foresee that a flood of foreign nationals could be large enough to distort representation and allocations of federal funds.
Irrespective of one’s viewpoint on immigration, it would seen fundamental to quantify their number. Especially when no other mechanism exists, i.e. Porous border control has made their number ambiguous.
Presumably, the number would/should be a consideration in policy planning and decisions.
The effort to alter the census appears to be an effort to disguise their number.
16
@Bongo - That is a very funny opening line, I hope unintentional.
My grandparents and great grandparents, all those from Sweden at least were among the one-fourth of the Swedish population who left Sweden during the last quarter of the 19th century, over time a million or so.
Floods of "foreign" nationals are nothing new. What is new is a USA that step by step falls behind, here as concerns immigration policy and the US Census Bureau system hopelessly antiquated,
Not going to get better either.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
@Larry Lundgren
Bongo meant uninvited foreign nationals. Perhaps its a subtle difference.
2
Most of the people I know would submit their census form, but simply not answer a question about citizenship. If a substantial percentage of people do that, it makes the question meaningless.
4
@Izzylind Me too and I will try at the end to see how many of us stated that we will do so.
Wonder how you can make your statement about most of the people I know.
In any case tell them I encourage them and probably will write about this at my blog, but not today.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution defines what is Equal Protection as well as what constitutes citizenship.
Does anyone in their right mind believe that I should have to give up Congressional Seats, Electoral Votes and significant sums of federal allocation of budget to Nancy Pelosi and her Progressive Californians just because they've created a giant magnet in CA to draw in undocumented immigrants for the purpose of boosting their population before the 2020 Census?
This is highway robbery in clear sight and I hope (no...Pray) that the Supreme Court takes their job seriously.
Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other fly-over states are being robbed blind, and Democrats act like this is a normal course of business.
25
@Erica Smythe
The fly over States can hardly be robbed. Are not the tax revenues collected from all of the States you mention less in total than that of just the State of California? The States you mention actually sent less Federal Tax revenue than it sends to the Federal Government thanks to the larger States in population and tax revenues collected. If I were in one of those smaller population States I would be grateful, not complaining.
15
Oddly, representation for political purposes isn't based on state tax revenue. There is no reason in the world why smaller states should have the least interest in seeing California's influence swell in proportion to its burgeoning population of illegal immigrants.
2
@Erica Smythe
You are kidding yourself if you think the agricultural Midwest does not have a large population of undocumented laborers.
3
I deplore Trump and his administration’s hateful policies toward immigrants and minorities. I condemn the transparent attempt to frighten and intimidate and undercount people. But having spent hundreds of hours in genealogical research, I have to acknowledge that it was very common in the early 20th century for the census forms to note whether someone was a “naturalized citizen” or an “alien.” That is not in any way a defense of Trump and Ross, and the laws may well have changed in the interim. But the practice is not historically unprecedented. It was not intended to be hurtful then, but it is now.
6
If "actual enumeration" does not mean the count of person, regardless of status, then the Supreme Court had better develop a lexicon of euphemisms and evasions to that the ordinary citizen can understand the supreme law of the land.
3
@Michael L Hays All people will still be counted. They'll just have another question added to all the already personal questions that are on the census.
4
@Michael L Hays Nice trick there Michael..inserting your own interpretation of the Constitution to include you words "regardless of status."
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
I'll stay on hold while you look.
Of course democrats want all the illegal immigrants counted. They correctly assume the party's propensity to support illegal immigrants will garner democratic votes. And the added counts in the census no doubt favor sanctuary cities federal funding allocations. The law may very well say we should count all people for census purposes but illegal immigrants should not have a vote.
17
@Charlie
apples and oranges.
who has the right to vote is NOT in question.
5
@Charlie
In case you have noticed the Democrats are in favor of Legal Immigration, DACA and better Border Security. What they do not favor is caging of children, illegal or not.
3
The real question is how resources provided by citizens via tax dollars should be allocated. Should they be allocated to illegal immigrants, or to citizens? In NY, illegal immigrants are getting free tuition. Meanwhile, citizens are struggling with student debt. CA and NY love to stack the deck with illegal immigrants in their census totals to extract more and more from the rest of America. I say let them pay for their policies.
17
@TL
Are Illegal Immigrants getting help with free tuition. Where is the proof?
1
@Jean I haven't kept up on this, but I think that currently, illegal immigrants in Georgia pay in-state tuition at state universities. I don't think they should, but there it is.
In 21st century America, everything is about political advantage (or so our media sources would suggest).
With that in mind, how do you reconcile the ethics of promoting census strategies that include as many non-citizens as possible with complaints about the Electoral College? Most people who want to eliminate the EC (and sometimes the Senate) claim it under-represents large states at the federal level. But the inclusion of non-citizens in the census and resulting apportionment over-represents some of those same states.
Besides blatant partisanship, what other motivations do you have?
15
Congressional representation is for the nation’s citizenry. It’s pretty simple.
23
As a database architect, I have used the census data extensively. Accurate information is critical for business and government alike - and poor data leads to wasteful spending. However, this administration has proven time and again that it has nothing but contempt for the truth, especially in the face of its political agenda.
The politicizing of data, information and scientific inquiry helps only to rot our country from within, weakening it further.
9
@Fredd R As a construction architect, I have used the census data extensively to build bridges.
Problem is...1/2 the people using these bridges aren't paying the taxes to build the bridges and aren't carrying auto insurance when the plow into the side of the bridge.
They have learned...however..that if they just abandon their vehicle and run and hide for 2 days until their blood alcohol has subsided..they can show up a couple days later and report their car had been stolen and they'd like to claim their property.
Now just imagine if every law abiding citizen in the U.S. started taking that approach?
Particularly in Denver.
5
@Erica Smythe
Yes, but how can you determine what bridges you need if you undercount the people who will be using them?
If the Supreme Court allows a citizenship question then that will rewrite history.
The founding fathers understood that not everybody in a state was a citizen of this country but that didn't revoke the state from claiming a person as one of their own to count for representation. They where not interested in who was a citizen they just wanted to know how many people lived in that state.
Lets not try to rewrite the constitution even though Trump want's to.
10
Because undocumented immigrants overwhelming live in large cities, this would disproportionately benefit small, rural states at the expense of large states in terms of representation in the House (where large states are already at a disadvantage due to the 435-member cap) and federal aid.
On balance it would also weaken Democratic-voting states, especially California and New York, since many of the largest cities are in those states. Because blue states pay more into the federal government than they receive back, it would further amplify the redistribution of wealth to red states that already exists.
It should therefore come as no surprise Republicans would seek to do this, since it fits their pattern of other undemocratic efforts nationwide: restricting the number of polling places in predominantly black areas, making it more difficult to register to vote, and simply destroying Democratic votes like in North Carolina. It also dovetails with the 2017 tax legislation, which further accelerated the redistribution of wealth from blue states to red states by eliminating the state income tax deduction.
The Constitution is clear on who should be counted: "the whole Number of free Persons." If this administration wishes to restrict this to citizens only, it needs to do so through the amendment process, not via secretarial fiat.
14
@Matthew Ratzloff exactly correct, free Persons includes non-citizens! Like Trump, the Secretary wants to go around the Constitution.
@Matthew Ratzloff The whole number of persons will be counted unless they voluntarily refuse to participate. And why would you think that an undocumented individual, afraid of being identified by a question on the census, would complete any census form, with or without a citizenship question?
The notion that we should be counting illegal aliens, referred to simply in this editorial as “immigrants” in order to intentionally elide the distinction, for purposes of representation, is ridiculous. It incentivizes politicians in those states which stand to benefit to not enforce the law and to encourage illegal immigration, which the Democratic Party and leaders of sanctuary cities and states are already doing. This issue continues to set the table for Trump for 2020.
24
I just completed one of the prelim census forms. I was more put off by the income section: what sources and how much from each; name and address of employer; how many hours worked last week; how do I commute, and how long it takes; and so on. Why do they need our college majors? Why do I have to provide a job description for a job title; isn't, say, gas station attendant descriptive enough? The citizenship question is the least of my worries. They're collecting way too much information, over and above numbers of rooms in the house and whether we have running water. Why do they need to know how much I pay for oil and gas each year?
18
@fFinbar You did not complete a "preliminary Census form." There is no such thing. Based on the questions it looks like you completed the American Community Survey. You can check the Census website to see how all that data are used. The American Community Survey has been conducted continuously since 2000, when it replaced the "long form" Census.
3
@fFinbar You don't have to answer those questions. Strictly speaking, all the government requires is a number of people that live a in household. The other information can be extremely useful, which is why they ask you to provide it.
@fFinbar If the US were a 21st century country all that information would be automatically collected from your IRS filings.
My USA has not joined the 21st century.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
This has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with politics and money. The blue states already contribute more in federal taxes than they receive, and so are supporting people in urban red states. This is meant to add to the tax act which targeted people in blue states for higher taxes, to further punish those states. But a recent survey on where immigrants live showed that many immigrants live in rural counties in red states throughout the country. So those counties and states would be punished as well (Texas, this is you). Will the Trump voters recognize the consequences for them?
5
Who is counted an easy question to answer. Judge Furman had it right. One can only guess why the SCOTUS took up the question and it's likely outcome. But I think that we know the answer already.
4
The current administration and all of its members are colluding, as if in a racket, to deny non-white Americans and those residing in America who have yet to become citizens their civil and human rights. Wilbur Ross' argument that the citizen question is needed in order to enforce some parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What is apparent is that there is no constitutional law that Trump or those literally
serving him respect or will comply with if it allows for people other than "white people" to participate as full Americans in any of the benefits this nation offers as a democracy.
Trump needs to win the 2020 election in order to avoid criminal charges after he leaves the presidency. He and those in office with him will do EVERYTHING to thwart an increase in citizens, voter registration and civility among Americans. That means denying the support of democratic principles, many of which came about as amendments to the Constitution. The founders of this nation, many of them Federalist (like the Federalist Society) recognize America for the "Republic for which it stands." What America is as a "democracy" is being challenged by the current presidency, congress, the courts and the media. Not counting everyone in America will lessen America. It will result in an outright lie about who is here. It is telling about what America has become. Who pays taxes for this? Not the wealthy protected by tax and criminal laws. They did not build this nation. But, they will ruin it.
6
Everyone WILL be counted. If someone chooses to not turn in their form for whatever reason that is THEIR fault.
8
We're white, old native born citizens, and we will not answer that question. The census seeks to count everyone in the country. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.
10
The whole purpose is to create an undercount. The only question is whether the GOP Justices will vote in lockstep to undermine our democracy for partisan gain. We already know that the GOP Congress and the current GOP president think and act that way.
Besides, what would stop anyone from then using that information to have troopers show up in the middle of the night and disappear said non-citizens? A law? Trump doesn’t care about stuff like that, and if the SCOTUS supports him in this, it shows they don’t care either.
I am not optimistic the the SCOTUS currently believes in Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
10
@B Brain, one last test for the Supreme Court. If it goes the way most non-partisian people think it will, then the country is doomed and so is democracy. Chris Kobach for King !
I think it is important to know how many residents are citizens and how many are not.
As usual, you are blocking information lest "it might be misused."
Doesn't censorship have the same goal? BLOCK information!
19
The purpose of the census, by law, is to count everyone living in the US. While knowing how many of them are citizens is interesting, is should not be done if it affects the main goal.
6
@Ludwig
Read the article
This information is gathered annually by the American Community Survey. Meanwhile adding the question to the Census has been shown to result in an undercount. Top it off with the procedural transgressions employed by Mr. Ross, and it seems pretty clear that the question is not needed here, will have a deleterious effect on the veracity of the census (thus also not accurately counting the numbers of non-citizens), and was improperly pushed through.
There a couple of reasons to want it, though, namely intimidation of immigrants and under-representing non-red electorates. I'd call this a "dog whistle" to the base, but it's too loud to qualify as silent.
6
@totyson - i have never received ACS
From every vantage point possible, the assault on representative government is relentless. Trump & the oligarchs will use any and every issue to consolidate power under their control. The article explains the latest attack but looking down from a 10,000 level, this is just another advance towards the overall goal. Conservative judges being seated in every possible situation to make sure the tide towards democracy washes out and is never seen again.
But America's turmoil caused by Trump has extensive ramifications outside the average person's understanding. Please Google "Reserve Currency" and read the S. China Morning Post on this subject. Life in America is about to change radically.
7
Why are census information secret? In theory, every person counted in the census should file or be included in a Federal Tax Return. Every person in a state with a State Income Tax should file also. How many people are being double counted in two states or are not reporting their income. All Income Tax Returns and Census forms should be public records.
3
@Mike Census info is available to the public at a detail level some years after it was collected. Have patience!
PLEASE do not make my personal info available immediately to be bought and sold and add to the number of scam phone calls I get!
1
Yes, we have a representative democracy. We also have laws our elected representatives have passed against illegal immigration. Is the Board suggesting that people who violate those laws should be represented by our Congresspeople? Because that's what happens when they're included in the Census counts used to allocate seats in Congress and the Electoral College. Illegal-alien-heavy states such as California receive MORE seats in Congress because of their illegal population, while other states lose seats. That dilutes the votes of citizens, since illegal-alien-heavy districts get the same vote in Congress that districts made up entirely of citizens do.
Using the ACS or other survey does NOT address the issue since it's the Census itself that is used for allocating seats in Congress.
21
The Constitution does not call for an enumeration of each state’s entire population every 10 years, as the editorial board assert. Article, Section 2 calls for a count of all “free persons” because all free persons, at the time, were citizens by virtue of residency. It excludes slaves and Indians not taxed from the census count because they were not citizens.
Slaves were enumerated separately from the census on “slave schedules” while Indian agents provided estimates of tribal populations. The census began counting Native Americans only when the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens. If the United States still had slaves, they would not counted because they would be specifically excluded from the census because they would not be citizens.
10
@William Case
That's incorrect. The fact that the Constitution allowed Congress to set laws for naturalization indicates that there would be some free persons in the country who might not be citizens depending on how the statute was set up. The possible presence of non-citizens who were free persons was clearly anticipated. In fact the first naturalization act, in 1790, established a two-year residency requirement before becoming a citizen. It was extended to five years in 1975 and 14 years in 1798. Despite that, the 1800 census did not have a citizenship question thus counting all free persons and slaves.
The fact that the Constitution talks of counting all free persons (and slaves as 3/5ths of a person) indicates that not only citizens were to be counted. That actual language specifically states that 3/5ths of "other persons" were to be counted and included for apportionment purposes.
"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."
4
@bill b
Tired of all the constitution experts, or so called.
It was written centuries ago, in a different time, and a very different place.
Think of the 2nd amendment — do we really think guns have the same place today as they did in 1776?
The document is there to protect us (all of those who abide by its laws) from our own government. While it was amended over the years to address the human rights issues of African And Native Americans, women etc... how we should manage a census in 2020 as compared to 1776 is woefully neglected and raises the concerns of whether or not we trust our present government to protect and serve vs some other ulterior motive.
2
A better question is why hasn't Congress reformed census law to collect data more than once a decade? We're already collecting population data annually. The American Community Survey is one examples. However, even your tax form could be reasonably adapted to derive fairly accurate population data. If you don't like the IRS, we could potentially use the BLS or any other number of agencies as well. The point is we have options.
As noted, the census is critical to many aspects of our representative democracy. Why are we still using data as older than Livestrong bracelets and bandanna t-shirts? Every single citizen born in the last 9 years is not represented within our political system. Assuming an average of about 3 million US births per year, That's roughly 27 million US citizens who are not accounted. That's Texas.
There's absolutely no technological reason this circumstance should be tolerated.
2
@Andy
The Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey is now used instead of the census to apportion federal funding.
4
@William Case
But not House seats...
It does seem like counting the illegal aliens in California and giving them more House seats through the census might be rewarding them for the ignoring federal laws through the Sanctuary policies which make it harder to enforce immigration laws. I think you can make a valid case for not counting them at all. But the choice to simply decide to ask it as a question is a legitimate power of the government which I’m sure the court will find.
20
It's a simple question on the census. Everyone should be willing to answer the question. There's nothing wrong with it.
24
@Bicycle Bob--It doesn't even ask if someone is here illegally. We get more than a million LEGAL immigrants each year, as well as hundreds of thousands of legal guest workers, all of whom are "non citizens".
1
We are developing two Americas. One America is documented up the whazoo, where every possible thing about you is known and remembered forever and you can never get away from your digital footprint. The other America is undocumented and people live in relative anonymity with little scrutiny of their personal details. I'd prefer to live in the second camp, but alas, I'm in the first. The second 'undocumented' America actually has several objective competitive advantages over the first America. People who have no paper-trail documentation can start their lives anew in a New World, including a clean-slate financially and legally. They also often get preferential treatment in hiring and college admissions. I'm quite literally jealous.
13
Fear of answering the census? I am sure it is there. We are moving towards a world of Big Brother under Trump who changes the rules to distort the truth. The hidden will stay hidden.
2
This is a true test of our Supreme court. If a majority is attained to allow the citizenship question, it will be a clear signal that Trumpism is victorious. The fitness of the question is not moot. Nothing could be clearer, if not legally, then morally and statistically, it is in contravention to an accurate "enumeration".
The key swing vote will be Roberts and it will be very interesting as to whether he can impact the votes of the two Trump appointees.
The Trump aim is ,as usual, transparent. By understating minority and non-citizen populations, he impacts the allocation of Federal funds. This, alongside his tax cuts which reduced the deductability of real estate taxes, will reduce Federal funding for largely blue states while increasing the tax bill from those same states.
10
@Brian Barrett--The question has been asked on the Census for more than a hundred years. My immigrant ancestors responded to questions about naturalization in the 1890 and subsequent Censuses. I've seen the records in the National Archives and at ancestry.com. Citizenship questions are also asked on 15% of the long form Census forms and on the ACS and other surveys. So, what's the problem with asking it on the Census? Mainly, that Democrats and others don't want to know how many non citizens, including illegal aliens, we have since the Census is used for allocating seats in Congress and federal funds. We're continually told that "immigrants" are a net benefit to us, be we don't really know how many there are, and how much they're costing us.
14
@Ali You'll never find out if you don't count them.
Representative Democracy of who? Some places have lots of people who are not Americans, yet California gets extra congress people to represent them. I don't mean long term permanent residents and are not yet citizens, I mean people who came here illegally and have lived and worked here illegally. Under our system those who have broken the law to live here, and area actually citizens of another country, are represented in congress.
This entire issue is just one of the problems with illegal immigration. Americans just about universally wish to welcome and include legal immigrants. By promoting such huge numbers of illegal immigrants we run into issues such as who gets represented.
20
As I understand the piece, proper procedures were not followed in adding the citizenship question. If true, the failure should not be tolerated.
There is the belief by some that including the citizenship question will lead to an undercount, because some non-citizens will not participate. Non-citizens are largely in two groups: (1) legal permanent residents and (2) those in the country illegally. Members in the first group will not be deterred by the citizenship question. Some in the second group might be, but should not, because the citizenship question cannot distinguish between legal permanent residents and those in the country illegally.
Those here illegally are weary of contacts with the authority, and that weariness might be enough to dissuade census participation. Will the citizenship question push more to forgo participation?
3
@Steve Brown There are also legal immigrants who have family members with murky status, and so they'll be hesitant to participate. Under this administration, even spouses of Americans have been deported because of technical glitches in their paperwork. There is real reason to be leery of our current govt's over-zealousness to deport people. There is no doubt participation will drop if the citizen question is included.
7
@Mendel no one in the country illegally should be counted period if this increases funding and representation from the federal government especially considering such persons are in the country illegally according to federal laws......
In other words blue states with so called sanctuary laws want to game the system receiving benefits from the federal government in direct defiance of long established federal immigration laws.........
This is one of the many types of corruption plaguing our country today.......
The plain truth of this issue is that Democrats have long had an “open door” policy based on the votes of many who have no business voting in the first place.
27
@Larry
And when Kris Kobach went searching for the millions of undocumented aliens voting in the U.S., he found nowhere near the millions that Trump “reported”. There have been a lot of good, non-partisan research that shows that “illegals” really do not have much more that a minuscule impact on elections. I live in a district with a significant Latino population, and one that leans very Democratic (btw, I am not a member of the Democratic Party). I vote in every election and I have seen poll workers question someone’s legal status, and turn them away to get more documentation before they can vote.
I have never been turned away, perhaps because I am a white man, but also because I usually show up with an ID and my election information documents from the Secretary of State, where they check my address, photo and name.
Additionally, the Constitution calls for a census every 10 years to count the population within the United States, not the number of American citizens. And that census is supposed to guide answers to questions about representation, funding, and most deceisions by the federal government. Adding a citizenship question has been demonstrated in the past to lower the accuracy of the census, which goes against the intent of the Constitution.
7
That's a Republican theory, based on how Republicans think, that has no basis in fact. Which party is suppressing the vote? Which party does all it can to keep members of the other party from exercising their right to vote? Democratic presidents have vetted immigrants as carefully as Republican presidents. Democrats don't believe in open borders. The only recent example of election fraud was perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina.
5
@Larry
Well, then. Let's add another question to fix that: "Do you have any business voting?"
Better?
1
President Trump is playing upon nativist passion with his citizenship question. Having succeeded in defeating GOP challengers in 2016 by tapping into anti-immigrant emotions, the 2020 census will be presented as a continuation of the president’s campaign.
In the best of circumstances, the decennial tally has missed people. Reliance on home surveys accompanied by actual visits are never 100%. Being an illegal alien is one reason, but there are others that deter providing the government with a valid count. But the exclusion of over 6 million inhabitants is a dangerous figure.
Fears of wrongful voting have been largely debunked. The failure to account for all residents, however, will place undue burden on state and local authorities in providing services to these individuals—from education to health care.
As sound as your editorial is, with the present make-up of the Supreme Court, the citizenship question will likely be added to the census. The xenophobia that presently grips our nation has not subsided nor even crested.
6
@doughboy What you call nativism and xenophobia is simply adherence to the Constitution. IMHO, the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to address slaves and give them protections afforded by the constitution. This amendment has been used in ways not meant when drafted. If we are not a nation of laws, then where do we draw the line on which laws we choose to obey.
1
This is just another example of Trump attempting to game the system in favor of a political party. Essentially it is Federal gerrymandering. Our Country will be poorer for the outcome if it is allowed to stand.
12
@Bill, ILLEGAL immigration is all about gaming the system, which is why Democrats are so adamant about getting as many "immigrants" as possible here, and letting them stay. Low wage, welfare dependent aliens (yes, low wage workers collect welfare and means-tested benefits) are likely to vote Democratic if they're ever legalized. IF you want "gerrymandering", this attempt at importing a new people to vote for Democrats is the height of that.
2
Why would anyone be concerned about this question. The Census Bureau should have all information deemed relevant to presenting a true picture of the individuals who live in America. The more information available the better to make decisions about policies.
24
@clay If you read the article you would know that there is another survey that asks the census question. The only reason to add the question on this survey is to punish immigrants and States with large immigrant populations. This is Trump's mantra for his base. If you look at other countries that refuse or treat immigrants poorly you'll find that none of them are we prosperous as the US!
7
@clayton
You believe that tripe? When was the last time our elected employees, esp.the Repubs - with loads of data at their disposal, made a sensible policy based solely on that data?
The recent tax reform bill? Nope.
The Patriot Act? Nope.
Climate Change policy? Hardly the data at hand, but mostly their opinions...
Immigration policy?
War in Iraq?
Online privacy regulation? Nope!
Net neutrality? Most assuredly not!
When has this Congress, especially the one previous, run by the GOP, even addressed issues that were screaming at them with data to address! Rise in gun violence? Rise in hate crimes? Rise in predatory banking? Payday loan abuses?
Come on...wake up. Data being ignored...is the new normal. Esp.on the side of the GOP. Former Rep.Ryan made a career out of ignoring data, in favor of his cliched opinions on the economy. So is Trump!
The importance of Data...lol...as if...
2
@George you meam ILLEGAL immigrant populations.......
1
The short form asks how members of the household are related. Not just spouse, child, grandparent but partners unmarried, roommates, foster children, boarders; all fairly personal.
We should know how many non citizens are living in the country. That's a legal question. Not a personal question and if people are here illegally, they know they are breaking laws and can feel the way they feel about it.
More importantly, why should communities where residents are knowingly breaking laws be rewarded with increased taxpayer funding and political power?
31
@CNNNNC
And now you want us to round up the residents we think are breaking laws so we don't lose our funding?
Who gets to keep their homes and possessions when they're dragged off?
3
@CNNNNC Because everybody uses the public infrastructure not just voters.
3
Although I am a registered Democrat, I fail to see why the census should not have a citizenship question. What is the point of having laws if they are selectively enforced?
There are 65 million people in refugee camps trying to follow legal paths to a better life. Should someone who sneaks in be put to the head of the line?
This is a problem the whole world is grappling with. Although it would be wonderful if we had good healthcare, clean water, adequate food, housing and good jobs for every citizen of the US, that is far from the reality. Immigration reform should be on the lips of all our elected officials. This problem will not go away.
Illegal immigration is one of the biggest reasons Trump was elected and if the Democrats don’t wake up we will be seeing another six years of Trump and more income disparity, less healthcare, a dirtier environment and more discrimination against LGBT, non-Christian, non-white and female citizens .
29
The goal of the administration is less participation. This can further tilt representation and the electoral college to rural areas.
7
@JRoebuck
Exactly. Less participation by those who should not be voting.
15
And there is no evidence that is happening. Local election boards do a good job.
All your asking for by asking that question is an inaccurate census. Whether people lie out of fear or refuse to cooperate; numbers will be skewed.
Data or propaganda?
3
This seems silly. All persons will be counted in accordance with the Constitution. In addition to lots of other data gathered by the Census, the number of self-declared citizenswill be counted. The difference between "all persons" and "citizens" will provide the best available data on the number of non-citizens. Like all Census data, getting actual facts can be helpful.
22
Anyone who claims that is it wrong to inquire about citizenship in the Census obviously has another agenda that simply protecting 'privacy'.
Indeed, why shouldn't the Census ask "if you're not a US citizen, are you in this country legally?"
We love to proclaim that America is 'a country of laws' but it's an empty boast because both Federal and local authorities choose, daily, which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to ignore.
57
@dbsmith Good points, but keeping track of people who are here illegally is not the purpose of the Census. The purpose ofthe Census is to determine how many people live here. Keeping track of noncitizens is the purpose of other laws and policies, which the federal gov does an abominable job of doing. See "9/11 conspirators."
The fact is that people who are here illegally go to urban areas and stress those jurisdictions' abilities to provide services for all their residents. The Census is a way to determine and address needs and costs. It's a mystery to me why people in the so-called heartland are so frightened of illegal immigration and terrorism given how insulated they are from those forces.
10
@RichPFromDC One keypurpose of the census is to allocate political alignment and power. Why should law breakers be given MORE representation?
14
lots of people are scared mainly because they are removed from the churn of he country's population. people fear what they do not know or understand. the unscrupulous take advantage of this.
"Whether the nation gets an accurate and fair count of its residents is now in the justices’ hands." A most challenging paradox. Whatever the judicial outcome, which will effect life, limbs and types, levels and qualities of wellbeing for so many diverse people in this divided nation, what is the population's role when selected, and not elected, for life flawed beings have such power? In a culture in which personal accountability is not a living-norm. Value. Not part of daily ethics nor of promoting, enabling and anchoring civility. Indeed what is the personal accountability of the person responsible for a question which is more about a political ism, goal, and consensus than it is about a census parameter?
2
I fail to see why anyone who is this country legally should have any fear of answering questions regarding their citizenship. Those who are here illegally should not be here. That requirement is by no means, to the best of my knowledge, peculiar to the US. When or why does it become so? I believe that it was so long before we even had heard the name Trump.
Why must every issue in life be construed into some pro or anti Trump discussion. That is growing very, very tiresome. If it OK to ask in a census other questions, giving us a better understanding of lifestyles, why woudl citizenship be taboo?
104
@Penseur
I think the point is that while you don’t see why anyone in the country legally would fear to answer the question, it is clear from the available data that a significant percentage do have that fear. Including this unnecessary question in the census would therefore provide incorrect data on the number of people in the country, which is the whole point of the census.
30
@Richard This is not a great argument. The census is intended for the allocation of funds for communities. If some of these communities are made up of mostly illegal immigrants I don't see why they should be given money that should go to US citizens. It seems to me that there is a huge push by illegal people in this country to get away with what they want at the detriment of the rest of the American citizens.
5
@Penseur
I'm always ready to throw my sabot into the works if I don't like them. So, if there's a question about citizenship, I will leave it blank. And will encourage as many people as I can to do the same.
7
One of the main purposes of the census is to determine the number of representatives each state should have. Only citizens count for making that determination although it appears that Democrats want to change that as well. Given the mess that immigration has been for decades it is a valid question to ask. This is not the first time the question has been asked. In fact it was on the short form up until 2010.
64
Comment 1 about the Citizenship question - USA compared with Sweden
As a dual citizen who completes a US census form every 10 years I decided to find out how Sweden knows how many citizens are here. I believe the answer is to be found in my own record.
In Sweden, every newborn baby gets a Swedish personnummer (PN) at birth and is a citizen from birth. Thus the Statistical Central Bureau has a perfect record of every person who is a citizen via that route. 99% of pregnant women enter the maternal care system at week 12.
Immigrants whether asylum seeking or people like me, married to a Swedish citizen must register and all of us who are granted permanent residence status have a PN and can be identified as non citizens until we apply and get citizenship.
In principle, the Swedish government knows exactly how many residents are citizens and how many are not and also knows how many people awaiting evaluation are present. No census comparable to the US census is taken.
Since the US immigration system is such a mess, nothing can be gained by adding a citizenship question to the census form unless the census form must be filled out be every individual who can be tracked down and made to fill out such a form, live, before a census taker.
If there is a citizenship question on my form I will not check the box just as I will never check a "race" or ethnicity box.
Forget the citizenship question. Let the Congress turn to immigration policy.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
8
@Larry Lundgren I do not think comparing the two countries'processes is valid for the simple reason being that Sweden is not dealing with a large number of illegal immigrants entering it across a 1,000+ mile border.
14
@DC - I am of course well aware of this and am not in any way trying to make a direct comparison.
What I am pointing to among other things is the absence of a modern immigration policy in the USA and to the apparent situation that nobody will be formulating one before 2020.
You use the phrase illegal immigrants widely used in the USA. In Sweden. Not a very useful category.
Asylum seekers is the term used for all or almost all of the people who came here in 2015 and 2016, more per 100,000 than any other European country of for the groups in question - Middle East, Horn of Africa, Afghanistan - or the USA.
If the best the USA can do is put everybody in an illegal immigrant box, then discussion is not possible.
Thanks for the reply. Only better USA data will make discussion possible.
Larry L.
7
@DC
Under the Constitution, immigrants are to be counted in the census. The census counts human beings.
1
The question of counting citizenship on the 2020 census is not a new issue. If anything, it has been an impetus for the totalitarian efforts of this regime to eliminate by whatever means they like as many persons who do not pass as citizens in. the proletariats' eyes and for that matter in the eyes of those plutocrats whose biases and prejudices and dislikes count more than one person: one vote.
We do not have as many elections as we should, which the census is a polling of the actual population far moreso than the regularly scheduled elections, which we have seen are restricted to those who pass the scrutiny of minor ward heelers in the various states where discrimination is more popular than inclusion.
Suppression of the government agencies whose role it is to count everyone is as heinous as going about the small towns and rural districts where people who are minimized in their everyday participation in government and society are regularly removed underhandedly from voter registration roles with insufficient time or notice to correct the malfeasance. In plain sight, indiscriminate and criminal officials scandalously refuse to allow lifelong citizens the right to vote because some yellow official can get away with his or her insufficiency. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the righteous decisions of so-called lower Federal Courts, we are in anarchy.
5
SCOTUS would not let the citizenship question stand as it is against the US Constitution. For the Republican Party and Trump administration it is imperative that they try every way shape or form to reduce the numbers of voters as they are constantly doing with the gerrymandering of various districts to foster safe seats.
The US Constitution is very clear re the US Census, it orders us to count all persons every 10 years. At least it did not say all People; had it said all people we would be asking if we should count every corporations too as the US Supreme Court has deemed all US Corporations as people.
As the census is designed to ensure that the representation is made accordingly in the Federal and State governments as well as the government should provide goods and services to the population of the Country. Counting EVERY person including tourist etc would not hurt but could provide us with a good number to provide necessary services to visitors also. Citizenship status would dampen the accuracy of this Constitutionally mandated Democratic exercise.
4
So we're disappearing people now like they did in the Soviet Union. Do you want to know how many people reside in the United States or not? Who profits from ignorance? And on that note, I could not help but think of Attorney General Barr when I read the quote by Judge Furman about Mr. Ross. he "failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry picked or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices". I'm telling ya, the guy could be a commenter.
19
I am a citizen. My family has been here since the 1650's. I will not answer that question. I will leave the space blank. If we all did that, what could they do?
24
@grmadragon - This is the best and simplest answer, one I have already filed about 5 above you and in print 2.5 h after you.
Personal info there.
2
@grmadragon
I'll leave it blank, too. As I do with "race."
1
When the Constitution was written, the assumption was that the number of non- citizens in the country would be an insignificant percent of the county's population.
.
Certainly, there would be a number of non-citizen immigrants present, but they would have been admited legally. Ilegal immigration was quite low unitl the last 30 -40 years.
.
The government has an important interest in knowing who is in the country without authorization.
71
You made up that assumption. The country was growing. An accurate count was a metric, not a political calculation.
15
@HH -- When the Constitution was written, we did not yet have the idea of "citizenship." That came later. So when it was written, there was no assumption about "non-citizens" and the Founders would not have known what that was.
28
@HH
When the constitution was written, the assumption was that guns would not be developed into rapid fire guns with many bullets fitting into the shooting mechanism. They would have never imagined violent shootings that occur today. .
So perhaps if we are to consider the relevance of the constitution today we should consider restrictions on guns.
9
Unless illegal "immigrants" are thought to be permanent residents from the day they arrive, it makes no more sense to count them in the Census than it does to count tourists or transiting truckers or cruise ship crews on shore leave.
And are we doomed forever to rely on the good old Pew Center for statistics on the number of illegal "immigrants" in this country? The Federal government can't even ask?!
119
@Kurfco The Constitution says all residents should be counted. Adding this question would add nothing to our knowledge of how many people are in this country illegally - it doesn't ask that. And even if it did, do you think the tally of responses would be even remotely reliable?
19
@Carl Yaffe
And what makes someone a "resident"? If it's just physical presence on Census day, we would count tourists.
15
@Carl Yaffe Not to split hairs here, but I believe the Constitution refers to "persons", not residents. If we counted only residents we would overlook the thousands of US citizens who are currently homeless.
32
I understand the arguments against asking this question. However we have debates about the magnitude of the population which is here but came illegally or stayed illegally. are we talking few or many? how many would allow more informed debate. How many at different ages, school needs, levels of education. we know so little and tt seems we are deliberately kept in the dark but not counting. Knowledge is needed.
40
@Monty Brown Knowledge is indeed needed, and adding the citizenship question is the wrong way to obtain it, in every sense. It would add nothing meaningful to our knowledge of the relevant information.
15
@Monty Brown The proposed question would not tell you ANYTHING about how many people came or have stayed illegally. It asks only whether or not someone is a citizen - NOT whether they are here illegally. Millions of noncitizens live in the United States as legal permanent residents. The purpose of the question is to strike fear into immigrant communities (legal and undocumented), drive down census participation to reduce the resources and politico power of those communities. And many people fear it would be used to create lists of immigrants who could be targeted by anti-immigrant groups.
12
@Carl Yaffe Can you suggest exactly HOW then?
A part of me sees this as a fatal struggle for the integrity of an old American institution. Undercounting by 6.5 million is unacceptable. Another part wonders if this is an opportunity for the nonprofit community to count all the people if the government won’t.
If the census bureau can’t count, people will have to find organizations that can. Perhaps states would help. State officials have obligations to people that will get underfunded if the Census Bureau ignores “those people.” Sounds like a 501c3, “reduce burdens on government” kind of opportunity. States would have a conflict of interest, however, since they would have incentives to over-count and bring more federal tax money home.
Of course, it would be a lot easier if the Supreme Court just rescued everyone from corruption at the top. Our laws make that bureau’s counts authoritative for a variety of vital purposes. It would be harder to fix that with action in Congress or a Constitutional amendment.
Still, you gotta believe all of those judicial appointments over the decades must have stacked the deck against reason to some extent. We can no longer expect a heroic rescue from our top court, but maybe a, “not without proper procedures” kind of rescue?
4
@NotanExpert What non-profit would be sufficiently apolitical and considered well enough to have reliable counts? I'm not thinking of any...
Congress is supposed to represent people who are citizens or legal residents of this country. Perhaps voting districts and representation in Congress and other funding based on census figures SHOULD be decided based on those who are legally present.
46
@Bookworm8571
Are you forgetting three-fifths of slaves?
You are wrong. Read the Constitution. The census counts "persons," and the result is used to determine representation.
3
@Bookworm8571 Your "supposed to" is ridiculous and wrong. The constitution is clear (ALL people) and must be followed or amended.
2
It is easier to understand the rationale for cities and states to declare themselves sanctuaries to protect illegal "immigrants" if you understand that the more heads -- legal or illegal -- present in any jurisdiction, the more representation they have in our government. AS LONG AS THEY GET COUNTED.
It is unbelievable what a tangled mess of a scofflaw ecosystem we have created through decades of failing to adequately enforce our immigration law. It's as though we now have so many bank robbers in our midst we have no way to know how many and are afraid to ask because the bank robbers won't participate and we will undercount them.
39
@Kurfco What you ignore is that LEGAL immigrants won't dare answer the question either if undocumented people live with them, as is often the case. Putting the question on the census has obviously malign intent, which you refuse to see.
3
@Kurfco
I see it differently. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, go to the liberal parts of the country because the other parts are more racist. It's telling that the conservative parts of the country generally under-perform economically compared to the liberal states. The blue states know that immigrants pay taxes, commit fewer crimes and contribute to a more vibrant economy.
The founders observed that all "persons" should be represented in Congress, and designed the census to ensure an accurate count for purposes of determining representation. This question is designed to intimidate non-citizens into not responding, in order to reduce representation in Congress of liberal parts of the country. It's a naked power grab, which is why Wilbur Ross lied to Congress about its origins. SCOTUS should uphold the lower courts and Ross should be prosecuted.
4
@Phil
True, but many of these comments show the disappearance of the distinction between undocumented and documented immigrants and asylum seekers. That seems to be the goal - ALL immigrants are now unwanted by certain people.
3
Democrats overplayed their hand on this. The emphasis they have put on the question is going to reduce the participation of illegal aliens, whether the question in on the survey or not. The country is better off if SCOTUS rules that the question cannot be added this year, because there are going to be lawsuits in 2021 whether the question is in place or not, and liberal justices will ignore SCOTUS in those lawsuits.
3
@ebmem how many ways to pick this twisted logic apart? Many. First, the announcement of the question probably did as much damage as the question itself will. Why would there be lawsuits in 2021? The census would be completed and the damage would be done. And as the article opens with: the census was established to count residents, not citizens.
18
@ebmem
Democrats are not concerned about "[reducing] the participation of illegal aliens." We are concerned about such a question reducing the participation of American citizens, as it is obviously intended to do.
2
@ebmem Ok, so if you think people won't comply then why bother? Who cares about fact anymore anyway?
Think of it this way: It will help stop some of the absurd arguments posted in the NYT comments section, if nothing else.
It seems truly naive to think that illegal residents are going to sign up to be counted, let alone disclose their citizenship status. Not even the educated among them will think this is a good idea. Explaining the reasons bears little weight with them, I doubt we get a truly accurate census count at all.
13
@Susan
Unfortunately, your logic is flawed as the “undocumented and unafraid” crowd, who have displayed again and again they are not afraid of the police or deportation. They possess a heightened sense of entitlement. They demand the right to follow the laws which suits them best it will never stop. The Founding Fathers could have never envisioned a land with 30 million illegals.
However, we do need a strong guest worker program for those who want to come to America to work and then return home. In this case both parties win
@D. Arnold The Founding Fathers were illegals when they stole the land from the original owners. The census should only count people, not citizenship or status.
2
After doing some research on this citizenship question two things seem clear:1) the Constitution requires that every person be counted every 10 years; and 2) the Constitution leaves it to Congress to determine what other statistical information should be collected via the census. The Supremes could very well kick the case back to Congress because it's up to the Hill , not Wilbur Ross, to decide whether to ask the citizenship question.
5
@Molly4
Almost exactly right. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to prescribe the manner in which the enumeration is conducted. Obviously, that includes what information is to be collected besides the head count.
The head count is required to count all persons, according to Amendment XIV, section 2.
4
As long as prisoners in prison within a state – people who have been found guilty of felonies, be they local, state, or federal beyond a reasonable doubt – are counted as part of the state's population in the census and thereby contribute to that state's representation in Congress, counting every person in that state is essential for fairness in the census.
9
Anyone who works for the Census Bureau and discloses confidential information commits a felony and may be imprisoned for five years and fined up to $250,000. Everyone questioned by the Bureau is protected by that law. I understand that many may remain skeptical. But I don't understand why the government does not put that information on census forms and direct its employees to point out how everyone, including immigrants, is protected from unauthorized disclosure.
31
@michjas
Even if the penalty were raised to 20 years and $1 million dollars it would do little in alleviating the concerns of immigrants disclosing their presence let alone their status. Mostly unskilled and uneducated rumor and innuendo run rampant in all immigrant communities.
10
@mlb4ever
And since it is not so very different with communities of college students, we should not look down on those communities for their rumor and innuendo. Besides, "uneducated" people know from experience, and "educated" people should know, that barriers to information flow between government agencies have had a way of becoming porous, especially in regard to immigrants.
6
@Thomas Zaslavsky
I am very careful not to disparage anyone or any community on this or any thread and do not believe I did so with my original comment. This editorial references Trump, it implies the immigrants being targeted are the ones crossing our southern border, I purposely stated "all immigrant communities". Since both my uneducated parents immigrated to the United States in the mid 20th century escaping poverty I would never think to "look down" on them.
I think there is a term used for critical replies of other people's comments with your reply of my comment being your third reply on this thread.
7