Ms Badger, you state: "The Constitution is clear that congressional seats must be apportioned by total population." That seems to contradict the (albeit somewhat clumsy, in todays constructs) language of Amdt XIV: " … when the right to vote … is denied to any of the .. inhabitants ... being ... of age, and citizens of the United States, ...the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such ... citizens shall bear to the whole number of … citizens … of age in such State." The illegal inhabitants appear to not enter the math here; they are neither citizens nor do they enjoy suffrage. Ergo, their numbers are important only to the extent that they not be a factor in determining the allocation of House seats. The Founders seem not to have contemplated illegal inhabitants, so the Constitution is silent on the whether their numbers should determine the distribution of "federal" aid, so Congress can do whatever they wish on this aspect.
Illegal immigrants are not passive victims. They have agency and are capable of dealing with a government questionnaire.
And this fight seems less concerned with actual human beings and more with unexploited natural resource of "potential voters".
1
Anyway, that got me wondering: In the Establishment mindset, are Democrats the Good Party because they are more nonwhite than Republicans are, or are nonwhites the Good People because they are more Democratic than whites?
As far as I can tell, this question seldom gets asked. Instead, the zeitgeist is a seamless web of circular logic.
1
Children are people, last I checked. They deserve representation as much as anyone else, perhaps more, since what is enacted now will affect their futures more in some cases. Skin color should not matter.
Here's a thought: since measures of populations are only applied and put in action some non-zero period of time after the measurement is made, they should be adjusted to account for the fact that some among the number will have shuffled off this mortal (and political) coil by the time they're applied. Without such an adjustment, we're effectively putting our future in the hands of an army of skeletons.
1
Don't you just love the shameless hypocrisy. For a former slave state to advocate only eligible voters to be counted when previously they got their representation in Congress enhanced by counting 3/5ths of what they considered their property - non-citizen slaves. Well we know how that happened. It was a their condition for joining the Union upon independence.
4
The solution is to count citizens and their children but exclude those in the US illegally. I might change my mind on this, however, if someone can present me with a list of all the countries that do allow illegal immigrants to count and vote.
4
Who said anything about illegal immigrants voting? The constitution is clear...they must be counted
4
@Jason B - There is a tendency to break things down into illegals or citizens. What about LEGAL immigrants? They cannot yet vote, but pay taxes and obtain government services. Shouldn't these populations be taken into consideration re: apportionment? What about children of legal & illegal immigrants who are citizens by birth? They should be counted. That's the problem when one sets restrictions, major portions of populations are left out. Even the framers saw that.
4
@Jason B … Jon, the language in Amdt XIV is clumsy, at least to me, but clearly adults without suffrage don't count for purposes of allocating House seats. Ms Badger is incorrect on this point.
There are other people than non-citizens and children who also don't vote. Don't we have millions of people convicted of felonies who can't vote in states that don't restore voting rights?
7
As we all know demographics are changing can there be some analysis projecting how this will represent people in 5 years and in 10 years?
1
I support immigration and the humane treatment of all people.
However, utilizing illegal immigrants to affect representation in the US government is non-sensical. What an incentive to not address immigration.
(I do think counting children of citizens is a reasonable discussion)
6
@Dan Children can't vote, they shouldn't be counted. No other country has this discussion because for election related issues and maps they only count the citizens who can vote.
1
@The Bear I get it - see both sides of counting children if resource decisions are made based on the census then there might be a case for it. But illegal immigrants being used - definitely not. Citizens should make the policy decisions for the country through their representatives.
2
If they exclude children along with immigrants, this would probably favor the Democrats as urban areas have few children and would thus become relatively more represented. There are way more children than non-citizen immigrants in the US.
Only counting voting aged citizens for apportionment purposes might remedy the federal government's failure to enforce immigration law for 40 years, and state governments issuing ID cards to illegal aliens as well as declaring they will not cooperate with ICE.
3
@Adrienne no. It wont. And its purpose is not to fix illegal migration. Its to disenfranchise anyone who isnt a white older conservative. Including black and latino citizens.
4
Biden is running away with the opinion poll because the average voter is highly focused on getting rid of Trump and wants to return to decency in government.
On the other hand fringe elements in the Democratic Party are less focused on actually winning elections, and more interested in radical proposals that make the average voter uncomfortable.
It's the great majority of people against the "talking heads" who are trashing Biden, and who would ensure Trump's victory in 2020.
Which will it be?
4
@David yes, and the fact is that Biden will need these “fringe elements” in his coalition, just as Rockefeller Republicans needed the religious right in theirs, to win nationally. This is why explicitly- or implicitly-Democratic-aligned media, cultural, political and academic figures can prone overtly anti-white, anti-male or anti-Christian discourses (see Lena Dunham or Sarah Jeong) or promote anarchy, as do most AP, WaPo and NYT commentaries on illegal immigration, without consequences. Biden and the rest of the DLC may not share such views but the fact that they tolerate them out of real or perceived necessity will cost them trust, and not just among the white *and* male *and* Christian intersection. (One possibility with some precedent is black male voters staying home in even greater numbers than usual.)
I think among white people, the idea is that people in the country people have more children. I guess that isn't true for the overall population, just whites.
@Ken Only among the racists who are hysterical about "being replaced".
1
This issue is very complex and my guess is that there will be a host of legal actions.
Remember that the constitution only requires an enumeration of all persons, without any qualifiers. In practice and precedent the enumeration always includes an estimate of people who did not fill out forms or were not present for interviews.
As far a responding to the census: the only question that requires an answer is the one pertaining to the number of persons living at that particular address. Questions about age, income, occupation, education, marital status, and even citizenship can be ignored and the census still counts the number of people listed on the form. Of course, the business community will go crazy without all that personal data that they rely on to direct their marketing efforts, where to site a new facility, et cetera.
I propose a campaign to have everyone ignore all questions other than number of persons, thereby depriving the Commerce Department the data that their client (that would be the business community) really wants and that is why the census is the duty of the commerce department and not department of the interior.
Personally I don't plan on answering any questions other than number of people. Are you willing to join me?
6
The Constitution is not clear that congressional seats must be apportioned by total population, as the author asserts.
The Constitution provides that state representation in the House of Representatives “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.”
(Most Native Americans were not taxed because they were not citizens. Most Native Americans were not counted in the census until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made citizens. Until then, the were regarded as citizens of other nations—the same as today’s unnationalized and unauthorized immigrants.)
The founders excluded millions of slaves and Native Americans from the census because they were not citizens. They excluded the whole number of free persons because the Naturalization Act of 1790 make all “free white persons” who had resided for two years within the United States citizens.
The founder's clear intent was to count the number of citizens for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats.
3
@William Case Wrong. Slaves were not excluded; they were counted as less than full persons. And they were counted in the first (1790) census. (See: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/us-census-1790/)
2
As an immigrant (not to the U.S.) I vote in my country of origin in absentia because I am allowed to do so. Yet if this right were taken away from me, not only would I not complain, but I also would enthusiastically support the new restriction.
Voting is a civic act performed by citizens, in the city. These three words are etymologically related and sociologically they share roots that run all the way back to Ancient Greece. All this touches on fundamentals of our civilization - another etymological cousin of the preceding three! Voting is a civic privilege and responsibility to be executed at the appointed time and place. Those who cannot or will not be present at such a time and place should be presumed uninterested. If this is “unfair” to the infirm or mentally incapacitated, life itself is ultimately unfair. As for people in my situation, if we’re so disconnected that we won’t be bothered to show ourselves there once a year, should we really be making existential decisions on behalf of our compatriots?
The three-fifths rule in the U.S. Constitution was a concession to the South, who insisted on it because she could. Later, slaves were freed and granted citizenship because such was right thing to do for people brought in against their will. America owes no such concessions to any other person who wishes to set foot on her soil, legally or otherwise. Without prejudice to their *social* contributions, the *voices* of non-citizens in *civic* matters should not count.
7
@rpm Legal, green card holders, pay taxes and therefore should count. You don’t know the reasons for non citizenship. If legal residents can serve in the military and citizens happily accept their service and sacrifice ,they should count. I will grant you that they should not vote, but their numbers count. Citizens don’t discriminate when they get emergency funds from the federal government that get taxes from legal non citizens.
5
@rpm, you argue at length against non-citizens' right to vote, but no one has ever seriously proposed that non-citizens be allowed to vote in US. It's just not an issue. Now, other countries have different rules about this. In Switzerland, you get to vote in your local canton elections after having been a resident for 8 years. But as we all know, United States is very very different from Switzerland. I doubt we will see any kind of discussion on this matter in this century. So you don't have to get so worked up.
@Jane “[N]o one has ever seriously proposed that non-citizens be allowed to vote in US. It's just not an issue.”
Not for the time being, perhaps. However, there are two issues at stake here. The first and most obvious one is the question of representational apportionment hinging on citizen vs resident population, and whether the Constitution mandates the latter. I find it interesting that some people here think it so important that the weight of non-Americans should count in congressional apportionment.
Perhaps more immediately important, however, are the implications of knowing the citizen population, which is obviously lower than the resident population and thus makes suspect discrepancies in voter turnout particularly in large urban areas (think the ballot boxes “discovered” days after the 2018 elections in South Florida) easier to detect.
1
Anyone involved in business or research should understand that messing with the census will have serious economic impacts. It's not about apportioning votes, it's about establishing facts. Who lives there, where, how, what age, gender. How many households have adults aged 43 and children between 6 and 12. If you don't think this matters, you don't understand how the world works. The Republicans want to preserve white power. This is another sign of how they are fundamentally unpatriotic.
5
@Brian
As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out during oral arguments, the citizenship question has been asked more often than not on census forms. It was asked every year from 1870 through 1950. It was last asked on the long form in 2000.
You are simply wrong in assertion that the census is not about apportioning voted. The census was created for the specific purpose of allotting representation in House of Representatives and in the Electoral Colleges.
The citizenship question is also about establishing facts, i.e., the number of citizens.
10
@William Case Sure, I misspoke about votes. I'm someone who, like many Americans, uses the Census to determine investment and other business decisions. Your opinion isn't just political, but economic. Other countries with Census data inferior to ours are harder to do business in, for that reason. The founders may have planned the Census with one thing in mind, but it's become a greater resource. The basic Census, the one most people get, hasn't asked a citizen-related question since 1950. For good reason, those forms go right back to the federal gov't. People afraid someone in their household will get deported will toss the form. I feel like police who have to ask people their citizenship when they interact with them. People will stop helping the police, and policework suffers. Ditto with the Census. People won't answer, and economic analysis suffers. As far as I'm concerned, if your political agenda damages basic R&D resources, you're undermining the strength of this country.
3
This column is about an issue that Might Mean something - counting US citizens on the census - and a question that Might Be Related - sizing voting districts by actual voters. Or might not be either one.
And neatly avoids another voting question - a real one.
12 states now give "undocumented" residents government documentation like driver's licenses.
Why? These people are all felons. Undocumented is just an ideological device to avoid saying "illegal aliens", which they all are. Giving them official recognition, as this does, is a step on the way to giving them the vote, which is clearly the intention in all those states.
And the rest of the USA, if the ruling party in those states (Guess who) has their way.
8
@Diogenes Complete nonsense. "Illegal aliens", unless they have committed other crimes are not felons. They may be guilty of simply a misdemeanor, or no criminal offense at all, although they can of course be deported.
No responsible person is advocating that undocumented aliens - whatever term you use for them - be allowed to vote in any elections. Even legal non-citizens can only vote in San Francisco (in school board elections only) and 10 small communities in Maryland.
3
@Diogenes
The purpose of "giving" driver's licenses to all people who drive is to protect public safety and ensure that all people who use public roads understand the rules of use and are properly insured. Immigrants of many categories use public roads and should be licensed.
A license to drive should not be used---as it is now--as a substitute for a national or state ID card or some other portable method law enforcement can use to identify people.
The US is rightly wary of imposing the authoritarian systems of national or state IDs which require residents to carry "papers" which must be shown to all authorities which demand them. Using a poor substitute--the license to drive--as a "national ID" is confusing and often not sufficient since licenses are issued by states and may be suspended for actual driving violations which have nothing to do with ID.
Time to decide. Will the US be a card carrying national ID country giving the right to many authorities to demand proof of ID? Or will the US continue to pretend it does not require ID of residents?
2
@Carl Yaffe and that’s how it starts, Carl. Get it going on the local/city/state level and then implement it nationally. I’m not for anyone being able to vote unless u are a citizen, have a visa or are otherwise allowed to be here legally. I know the article was about “apportionment”, but seems we are always talking about something else related to the census every election cycle.
I agree w Diogenes that if we start giving out ID cards to non-citizens it gives them validation and next thing u know we got non-citizens voting. I don’t have a problem w immigrants or people that do things the right way but what is going on right now is ridiculous. If the Dems had their way, they’d IMPORT MORE VOTERS bc that’s what this is really about.
2
We have asked the citizenship question many times in the past without a problem.
6
@Rich Murphy Please update your calendar. Harry Truman is no longer president, as he was the last time this question was part of the census.
3
Non-citizens ... to be considered to be allowed to vote ?!
OK.
American law relating to immigration and the screening procedures adopted by official immigration authorities affect so much of our Patel community that the entire social dynamics of the Patel community, especially in North Gujarat, are directly affected by the immigration laws.
So I on behalf of the Patel community ask for online voting rights for the North Gujarat based Patel community staying here in India as Indian citizens but directly affected by not only American immigration law but also by the American job market and American property market of the Patel community which qualify as American citizens staying in America.
Gee whiz.
@Nirmal Patel I'm curious about what interests the Patel contingent votes for in India. If they are so numerous, do they demand better government services? Do they support adequate pollution control? What about reciprocity in immigration with other countries such as the US?
2
Conservatives should be careful they don't kill the golden goose that is keeping all those poor republican states afloat. We are already in a situation where the senate is controlled by a rural republican minority and our current president "lost" the election by 3000000 votes. Soon half the population will reside in ten (mostly democratic) states and those states will pay most of the government's bills. At some point California and the other states paying the bills will decide they no longer want taxation without representation and simply refuse to pay the bills. Grover Norquist would win as federal government became "small enough to drown in a bathtub", but California is larger than most countries and could simply take on most of the obligations for its citizens currently covered by the US government. The poor rural states would collapse as they lose the vast federal support they currently enjoy.
6
conservative, older, mainly rural, whites are fighting tooth and nail to hold onto political power as they are subsumed by evolution in the overall population. they feel they are are drowning and will grasp at any straw to "save themselves" and retain their outsized power and influence. ultimately, as they subconsciously realize, it won't work and they will have to accommodate themselves to living in today's real world. they try to hold off that reckoning with the mean-spirited and blatant census question tactic. digging in their heels shows their desparation. this is basically how we got to the poisoned water in Flint. America is better than this.
5
Conservatives bemoan how the apportionment of representation based on the census counting of all people, not just citizens, distorts direct democracy. Liberals respond that the census method is defined in the Constitution.
Liberals bemoan how the electoral college and even the Senate distort direct democracy. Conservatives respond that both of these are defined in the Constitution.
Who is right?
2
@Bob Krantz
we are a democratic republic, a collection of sovereign states, rather than a direct democracy. there has been a long running battle to subvert the republic.
2
each state should determine their own method of districting.
much of the issue being discussed arises from when congress froze the total number of representatives in the house, creating a situation where one (or more) congressional house seats can be taken from a state and given to another state, upsetting the intended representation of communities at the federal level.
2
Republicans find democracy inconvenient.
Polls show that a clear majority of voters of both parties support sensible gun protections,
a path to citizenship,
increasing the minimum wage,
protecting our air and water,
overtime pay for low wage workers,
the wealthy paying their fair share in taxes,
protecting Social Security,
expanding access to Medicare for those who want it,
universal health insurance.....
the Republicans' wealthy donors want none of that, and so the Republicans must lie about what they are up to, and must suppress the vote of people who may disagree with them by whatever means they can
9
@Lynn
democracy has it's faults which is partly why we have a democratic republic and a fundamental decentralization of government power.
an all powerful centralized government that blows in the wind to the chaotic whims of a popular vote, or a despot, is not what we free people want.
2
@SSS
But a government where a poor rural minority rules overs a larger urban majority can't last long and that is what we have now. A good reason to count all people rather than just citizens is that economic issues (income and needs) depend much more directly on total number of people rather than total number of citizens.
If we have to count all residents for the purpose of Congressional districting, then we are saying that udocumented immigrants get representation in Congress and in state legislatures. I'm not sure I like that.
13
@Marty, how about documented immigrants, like me? Should I not return the census form, as I am merely a resident? I've been paying taxes here for 20 years. In my all-immigrant household, we pay way more than the median American family (more importantly, we contribute significantly through work and in other ways). Should we not be represented? Whatever happened with "no taxation without representation?"
What about an undocumented parent of a US citizen child? Should this American child not have representation for her parent? I can imagine such a child growing up with considerable anger toward the society.
What about a loving, hard working, yet undocumented spouse of a US citizen, perhaps a veteran? Do you want to tell that veteran that their closest kin has no right to representation?
What about someone who has been working for poverty wages for decades in American fields, so you can have cheap strawberries? Say, they raised a hard-working family and are known to be very helpful to their neighbors. Should they have no representation?
Do you seriously think that people who work productively for decades in American society, or raise American children, should have no representation? We contribute to your society. Our money and our work supports you and your fellow citizens. And yet we, and the cities we live in, are not worthy of representation?
4
We counted slaves.
@Jane resident, national and citizen are not synonymous and for good reasons which if I may, you seem to exemplify. Since you are keen on making apologetics for the illegal actions of certain other residents I would say that we are making a huge mistake in allowing your ungrateful self to continue to live in the United States. In the same token I also believe we make a huge mistake granting nationality and citizenship to children of parents so un-civically minded.
2
"We’re moving forward in a global economy and a more diverse country,” Mr. Frey said of this possibility, “and we’re going to have a representation of a country that really is more like the 20th century than the 21st century.”"
Which is precisely why Republicans are focusing so squarely on this issue.
It's a power grab, pure and simple and one likely to be approved by a conservative court that lets politics, not the constitution rule their decisions.
If the founders specifically defined that a census must count all persons, not just voters, then what the Trump administration is doing with the citizenship question--clearly intended to intimidate census recipients--is pure politics designed to rig the system for white, rural Americans.
9
@ChristineMcM So the politicians, who have allowed the willful, widespread, long term violation of duly passed laws they swore to uphold, should be rewarded with more power because they encouraged and enabled mass illegality?
That is third world level corruption and a power grab if there ever was one.
3
required by the constitution, the census is a population count. it has nothing to do with citizenship. For example, US citizens living outside the United States are not counted.
Sadly, we know that 5 justices on the supreme court do not care about what the constitution says or what previous supreme courts decided. Nor do they care what the practices of the Unites States has been since our inception.
6
Citizens abroad can vote in their home district. And, the military reports the number of people, personnel, employees, and dependents. posted overseas during Census counts.
1
A question: Are the non-citizens required to pay taxes? I seem to recall that there was once a fight between England and a bunch of colonies over the issue of taxation without representation.
7
@Roberta Laking, of course non-citizens are required to pay taxes. We pay exactly the same taxes as citizens, and that is as it should be. Whether we stay in US for a few years or for the rest of our lives, we are members of this society, and we contribute to it through taxes, work, charitable contributions, and personal engagement. It is so offensive to be told that our interests deserve no representation. This type of political climate is the main reason why I opted for renewing my "green card" instead of applying for citizenship.
2
@Roberta Laking - do poor citizens pay federal income taxes ? Many do not.
Shall we not count them also and make feudalism great again ?
1
@Jane
I'm sorry Jane but you are not a full member of this society with a "green card". For one, you purposefully side stepped a citizen's duty to register for military duty.
3
If we go to citizens counted only, then the disenfranchisement of citizens eligible to vote should be punished as provided in the Constitution. In fact, any state should automatically have its representation reduced for barring eligible citizens from voting.
3
so how are US citizens that are residing outside of the US apportioned ? according to their last US residence ? last voter registration ? last domestic tax return ?
1
@SSS, they are not. If they do not reside in the US for the particular census, they are not counted.
The census is simply not about counting citizens. It's that simple. It's about counting residents, and determining what in the sciences we might call their spatial distribution (that is, how many people in each location in US).
3
@Jane
so spatial areas with lots of US citizens abroad in the military are not apportioned as if those US citizens were home ?
1
Time for a change. I am an entitled white male. Semi retired in my early 50s with multiple houses, cars and a staff which allows me to pursue other interests. One of my more guilty pleasures is the luxury to read 2 to 4 hours a day sometimes more. This world is heading towards disaster. What I read is not good. Hatred and division on both sides.
Time for democratics to vote for candidates who are self-made and non-white.
Time for a change.
1
Its simple. Folks here without authorization to even be here should not counted for determining political representation. Its grossly unfair to areas where laws are respected. Democrats flaunting immigration laws,allowing sanctuary cities etc are trying increase political power this way it seems. That's cheating and should not stand.
9
“...produced on average some districts that were 50 percent larger than others by total population.”
Existing Congressional Districts in California have voter registrations ranging from 222,000 to 477,000. That’s 115% more voters in the largest who have less than half the representational power per voter of the district with the least. And that’s much better than it’s been in the recent past where there was a more than 3 to 1 ratio and two Speakers of the Assembly, the 2nd or 3rd most powerful politician, came from the district with the lowest number of voters
Let's see what the first Electoral College and House of Representatives would look like if slaves were NOT counted as 3/5s of a person. Take women out of the mix as well and what would the Founding Fathers have created?
I should do the math, but it will take a while. Maybe someone smarter and quicker than I can do it.
And what, exactly, is wrong with being white and older? Haven't we paid our dues? It is not synonymous with being "red staters"; plenty of us are liberals, but we don't think our interests should be ignored.
10
@mdieri
"Ignored" is a pretty hyperbolic take concerning the demographic that, even without the Trump Administration's unconstitutional proposal, wields the most significant amount of political power and privilege. An accurate count is not going to silence those voices or diminish their fair representation. Moreover, it permits more efficient and effective governance at all levels, thereby benefiting members of all identities.
There is an old adage crime doesn’t pay well if you allow illegal immigrants to count as much as citizens then it does pay just like allow them to drive or collect benefits etc. The census is to count citizens period.
7
@EAH - "The census is to count citizens period."
Not according to the Constitution.
If you wish to change the Constitution, there is a procedure for that.
Since this is one of those issues where the founders actually weighed in, the originalists on the USC are absolutely going to vote to support one person, one vote, right?
9
@John
YEAH, riiiiiiiiight!
@John One CITIZEN, one vote.
1
"People Who Can’t Vote Still Count Politically in America. What if That Changes?"
No, the question is not about people who cannot vote (but are in the country legally), the question is about why should we count people who by the law are not supposed to be in the country?
13
@areader
Because the Constitution requires it. Since the pre-ratification debates, we have always read the Enumeration Clause to require a census of all people living in the country - citizens and non.
The Trump Administration doesn't even contest this fact. The issue at hand is whether or not they can collect citizenship data also, and for what purposes it can be used.
@Ruby,
You're again confusing the issue, probably on purpose.
"Enumeration Clause to require a census of all people living in the country - citizens and non."
The issue is not about citizens or non - you can live in the country legally and not being a citizen. And you will answer the citizenship question easily, and the census will count you without any problem.
Again: why should we count people who by the law are not supposed to be in the country?
1
Stop having open borders. This doesn't mean only at the border; it must also mean once a person has gotten in. Require secure national identification for employment or other major transactions, with strong punishment for those who ignore this requirement. Provide an easy route to citizenship for those who have been here many years with a reasonably good record, deport the rest, and promise never to let this happen again. Only then will be be rid of the millions who do not have a legal right to be here. Only then will we know who to count when setting up voting districts.
9
@Garraty
"Provide an easy route to citizenship for those who have been here ..."
When a country offers unauthorized migrants a path to citizenship, it encourages more people to take the gamble of moving here without authorization. They come with the expectation that they, too, will eventually be legalized and offered a path to citizenship. Once legalized, they are allowed to bring in their immediate family members. Once they become citizens, they can petition to bring in their parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, and other relatives.
In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a bill which offered a path to citizenship to just under 3 million unauthorized migrants in exchange for ending all further illegal migration. Rather than ending illegal migration, it motivated millions of poorly educated people to move here illegally. PEW estimates that 11 million people are here illegally. Professors at Yale thought this estimate was too high so they conducted their own research. To their surprise, they discovered the PEW estimate was way too low. They wrote that there is a 95% probability that the number of illegal migrants is between 16.2 and 29.5 million, with a mean estimate of 22.1 million. (See the 9/21/18 article in Plos One titled "The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States: Estimates based on demographic modeling with data from 1990 to 2016”).
Amnesties inadvertently encourage more illegal migration.
10
@ann Amnesty under Reagan invited more illegal immigrants because we did not do anything to stop them. We continued to permit people who made it here to live and work, in most ways just like citizens. The change that I propose is to have and to require secure national identification, required for employment and other essential activities, backed by strong punishment for those who ignore the requirement. If we take control of who can live and work here, then we will no longer entice additional illegal immigrants.
2
we have spent millions to help ensure fair elections in countries where it is commonplace for tribal and ideological (usually the former)-driven groups to attempt to sway elections by taking advantage of poor records, pourous/contested borders, and corruption, but we now have pundits saying that such safeguards are unneeded here.
The vast majority of elected offices in this country are local/district level, where a few votes can throw an election. It does matter.
Citizenship has been so thoroughly debased in this country that it no longer warrants any real consideration.
5
We now have so many unauthorized migrants living in some states that the migrants have a powerful influence on state and local politics. States with large numbers of unauthorized migrants are offering them more and more services and subsidies that would otherwise be reserved for citizens (and possibly for legal residents).
In addition, some areas have become sanctuaries which refuse to hand unauthorized migrants, who have committed crimes, over to the immigration authorities unless the crimes are especially heinous. And, in California, state officials are forbidden to ask a person about his immigration status.
These state and local actions encourage migrants to move here illegally. The Courts have consistently said that the federal government has the power to control immigration, not the states. In offering services, subsidies, and protection from deportation to unauthorized migrants, states are usurping the role of the federal government. These states are encouraging illegal migration, but they expect the federal government to help underwrite the many costs of the migrants lives. The states want every unauthorized migrant to be counted so the states will get more federal money for education, health care, social services, corrections, etc, and so they will get more seats in Congress. Should these states be rewarded for encouraging illegal migration when the Constitution and the Courts assign the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over immigration?
9
I am a physician in nyc where we provide free or almost free medical care to illegal immigrants and any visitor to the US. They are on a sliding scale but basically show nothing since they generally work off the books. Meanwhile the citizens I see can’t afford their follow ups due to the cost. The illegals’s care is paid for everyone’s taxes but the burden is worse for the lower and middle class who compete for jobs and don’t benefit from the cheap labor. Those that benefit are the bankers, doctors, and lawyers who get cheap cleaning ladies, nannies, construction and lawn services.
11
Since the 2016 presidential election, Democrats and the New York Times have 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, Electoral College and state legislatures.
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 reside in the United States.
If the Yale estimate is accurate, about 25 million noncitizen reside in the United States. They generate more seats in the House of Representatives and more electoral voted 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 generate more House seats and more electoral votes than any state except California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
Foreign nationals residing legally or illegally in the United States have far more impact on elections than Russian meddlers.
29
The only problem with this argument is that it is specious on the face of it. The Founding Fathers were asking for a count of people in a district or state; they did not request a count of the number of citizens in that district or state.
5
@Glenn Thomas
Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution specifically excluded slaves and most Native Americans from the census count because they were not citizens. The census started counted all Native Americans only after the Indians Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens. Article I, Section 2, called the "whole number of free persons" to be counted because at the time all free persons resident in the United States were considered citizens.
5
@William Case
Those damned meddling people that actually live here and whose livelihoods and daily lives are affected by our political decisions.
Always the same partisan Republican tune, Mr. Case, no matter the facts.
2
Since the 2016 presidential election, Democrats and the New York Times have 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, Electoral College and state legislatures.
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 reside in the United States.
If the Yale estimate is accurate, about 25 million noncitizen reside in the United States. They generate more seats in the House of Representatives and more electoral voted 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 generate more House seats and more electoral votes than any state except California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
Foreign nationals residing legally or illegally in the United States have far more impact on elections than Russian meddlers.
12
@William Case
"They generate more seats in the House of Representatives and more electoral voted than the residents of any state except California and Texas."
Wow, is that a specious assertion. First of all, regardless of what estimate we use, the undocumented residents are dispersed around the country, without a state or local based tally, it's entirely impossible to substantiate their actual impact on distribution. Second, because the number of Members of the House has been (contrary to the clear intent of the Framers) frozen for a century, and a minimum representation required, there are no new seats actually "generated" at all.
In Wisconsin if you have not voted in four years they send you a letter (never mind you might have moved) and if you don’t respond they kick you off of registration! One of Scott Walker’s voter elimination methods, probably.
6
@MIMA
In Virginia, it's 8 years (two consecutive presidential elections). When we go around registering voters, we have to ask about it because yes, people are unaware and might have moved.
1
@MIMA
"If you move or if you legally change your name, you are required to update your voter registration."
I think that Wisconsin rule is true everywhere.
2
The Republicans will praise God their prayers are answered!
3
One White Male: One Vote
Make 1787 Great Again
GOP 2019
27
Why do you refer to Hispanics as nonwhite? You certainly are not speaking of blacks and Asians in this article and the choice of Texas cities as the reference point makes that clear. For example, McAllen, Texas is presented as majority nonwhite when it is actually majority Hispanic. The US census states that the concept of race is different than the concept of Hispanic origin. The race question on the census does not include “Hispanic” as a category. There is a separate question asking whether one is Hispanic or not. Studies have shown that the majority of Hispanics in this country consider themselves white.
17
@Lynn in DC
The article states at the beginning that "white" will be used to mean non-Hispanic white, not "racially" white. Maybe that was not a good idea.
This highlights how the Republican Party has moved itself slowly beyond the pale of morality, and it shows in two ways.
First, as in this case, they openly promote policies that favor the demographics that constitute their party at the expense of other persons. The case described here is a blatant move to favor the interests of a subset of the population rather than the population as a whole. They obviously and callously have no concern for people not like themselves.
Second, they favor policies that show they believe the ends justify the means. This sort of moral convenience is never true, but it is certainly useful in getting what you want without having to face the reality of the distinction between right and wrong. In this case, they can tell themselves that ignoring the preferences of millions of voters is justifiable because Republican voters are good, solid, Americans.
This is a naked power grab that hopefully will be exposed for what it truly is.
12
We are the precipice of ceding control of our country to those who can harness the political power of the mob. Counting non-citizens in the census will give greater representation to the states that welcome them, legal or otherwise. Democrats don’t care about immigrants, they just want to use them.
16
"...precipice of ceding control of our country to those who can harness the political power of the mob." No precipice here. Isn't that what happened in the last presidential election?
1
@Larry
You mean the Republicans, who make no secret of their hatred of immigrants (legal ones, too?). Democrats do care about immigrants (legal ones, too) and you want to deprive them of the necessities of life though they are keeping our much of our workforce effective. That is not what our Founders had in mind.
2
Someone who is ineligible to vote may or may not “deserve” representation, but they are unequivocally not legally entitled to it. The Constitution guarantees the right to vote, not the right to representation. A noncitizen or a child cannot bring a legal challenge to a gerrymandered voting district, a change in polling locations, early voting hours, etc. And a citizen cannot sue her congressman for failure to represent her.
12
@Josh Chamberlain
Nope. Children are implicitly entitled to representation.
Congressional districts are to be apportioned based on total population, regardless of individuals voting status.
8
@SJM
Don’t conflate reapportionment with redistricting.
Find the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to representation. It’s not really there. There is no cause of action available to anyone who asserts he is not being represented by his elected officials.
What’s there is the right to vote. Children, non-citizens, incarcerated prisoners (except in Maine) do not have standing to bring a legal action challenging an election procedure, but they may, or may not, be “represented” by their elected officials.
If we did not have the Electoral College I would strongly agree that voting districts should be apportioned according to voting eligibility. I do not think there are more conservative old white men than there are women, youths 18 and older, and non-white citizens. Without the Electoral college areas with higher populations would have more weight in Presidential elections. At the moment the system already favors underpopulated states.
2
by the current method ... a single citizen with 10,000 non-citizen guests has a vote 10,001 times more powerful than the single citizen with no guests.
one citizen, one vote.
16
@SSS That's completely illogical. One vote is counted as one vote no matter how many people it may theoretically represent.
But if your house is big enough for 10,000 guests, can I have some of my Canadian relatives stay with you?
2
@SSS
Stuff and nonsense. Produce one such citizen who isn't a billionaire. In fact, you can't even produce one who is a billionaire. I'm tempted to say you Republicans are all alike, but I'm not saying it.
1
Good. Lets do away with the electoral college. Because my vote is worth about I/3 if someone’s vote in Montana.
1
Clearly the 2 sides of this issue don't live in the same universe. One is outraged that people who enter this country illegally must be deported. This group is wrong. The other believes that laws need to be enforced and that a country with porous borders ceases to be a country. This group is correct. There is no way to sync up the wrong and right sides of this issue. And in a world where a good and moral man like Joe Biden is excoriated by his fellow Dems for compromising at times with people he vehemently disagreed with, for the good of the country, the situation is intractably hopeless.
21
@MJG No one who claims that the U.S. has ceased to be a country is correct. We're a country that is in need of a lot of things, of which enforcement of sensible immigration laws is only one - albeit an important one - in a long list.
Regarding your last statement, most Democrats aren't excoriating Joe Biden, at least for that reason, and "intractably hopeless" is way too pessimistic.
2
@MJG
It is ludicrous and prejudiced to say "a country with porous borders ceases to be a country." The history of every country proves that.
3
@MJG one side is outraged that in a country with a falling birthrate and hugely underpopulated cities there is no path for the thousands of people who desperately want to come here, or people who came here as children to stay here. One side is also outraged that the desperate people at their borders are being treated with appalling and horrendous inhumanity. These people are right.
The other side believes that constricting immigration of all kinds is good, and that tearing children away from their parents and then making them sleep on concrete floors without soap or toothbrushes is ok because...laws? This group is wrong.
Fixed it for you.
6
Census questions are concerned not only with the total number of people but also with their age, sex, origin and race.
So, why there can't ALSO be a question about people's citizenship?
15
@areader
There can be. It has been shown that it would undermine the main purpose of the census according to your and my Constitution, which is to count the population.
7
@Thomas Zaslavsky,
Is the main purpose of the census according to your and my Constitution to count also those who by the law is not supposed to be in the country? Are you sure that's what your and my Constitution meant: to count millions of illegal aliens as members of the population needed to be served?
1
@areader
Because it will intimidate many, and thus undermine the intent and purpose of the census.
1
The original constitution specifies that "free persons" are counted for apportionment (does not mention age, sex or citizenship), and even specifies how slaves should be counted for apportionment, though they were not considered citizens. To me that makes it clear that the constitutional intent is that all residents, not just citizens or eligible voters, should be included in the population for apportionment. As to the citizenship question - the constitution is mute and the mandate for a full count should outweigh the twisted logic of those favoring the citizenship question.
15
The voting population...
Would that include children? They are counted in the census of course.
Would that include the children of undocumented immigrants who are themselves citizens?
Even when women and blacks were denied the right to vote they were still counted in determining proportional representation.
5
"Noncitizens and children are the primary groups who cannot [vote]."
Ms. Badger, I'm surprised you didn't mention incarcerated people and ex-offenders who were convicted of felonies. Those two categories account for a large swath of the U.S.'s non-voting population.
5
People who don't vote;millions of felons, inmates, children... already do not count in the figurative sense. No one listens to them, they have no lobbyists greasing palms.They only count literally for purposes of drawing districts. Adding the citizenship-question is just another part of the mix of what is "people" without true representation in this nation.
4
"The Constitution is clear that congressional seats must be apportioned by total population."
Does the Constitution say that all legal non-citizens must be considered or those who are in the country illegally, too?
5
“Total population”
2
@Martini,
Does the Constitution say that “Total population” includes those who by the law are not supposed to be in the country?
1
Seems like common sense that Representation of the people means of American citizens.
if I live in Russia or Mexico or UK or anywhere, I would not expect to be represented in their parliament
Common sense
17
@Joe Yo
Common sense is meaningless, subjective, and in this case in particular, irrelevant to the debate. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment makes clear:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State"
1
@Joe Yo, as the saying goes, common sense is not very common. You would grant zero representation to people who work in the society, pay taxes, and possibly raise families. To me, that makes no sense at all. They contribute to the society. Therefore, to completely ignore their interests is detrimental to the society.
I am not a US citizen, but I have been paying taxes here and contributing through work for two decades. Unless things go badly in this nation and I decide to sell my house and take my business elsewhere, I am likely to continue to live in US, pay taxes, and contribute through work and otherwise for many more decades. I do not intend to apply for citizenship, though I might change my mind in the future if this society takes a turn for the better (i.e. toward being more humane, more rational, less prejudiced toward anyone with a foreign accent, etc).
Are you telling me that I should have no representation at all? If that is so, I better move somewhere where my contributions will be appreciated. Frankly, given the anti-immigrant climate in this country lately, and the general political atmosphere, I have started to consider that option. A few years ago, I did not think it would ever come to that. But here we are - I'm being told that, even as a long-term contributing member of the society, I deserve no representation...
1
@Jane This right to representation is part of being a citizen. Think of it as an inducement.
1
I love the headline! Like it's a new and novel idea. Republicans began asking themselves that very question decades ago and they drew the most obvious conclusion very quickly. Isn't everone else out there laughing about this question? I guess some are crying as well.
4
It's a shame that the noble ideas expressed in the 14th amendment - to blunt in the insidious racism of southern whites - are now used to support activity that doesn't fit in any reasonable legal framework. U.S. citizens are the only people who should be counted in a census for the purposes of allocating Congressional seats and for allocating federal dollars. Anyone residing here illegally (i.e. "undocumented") has no legitimate claim to the benefits of U.S. citizenship.
11
@Norm Weaver
Sure seems like it's still being used to blunt the racism of many. From the very first census on, we have counted citizens and non alike. In large part that is due to the fact that all residents, regardless of their compliance or standing within our civil immigration rules, are subject to our laws and afforded certain Constitutional protections (e.g. habeas corpus).
So, if you stop counting children you are going to give older voters more power and therefore more money. Invest in the past, right!!
4
Illegal immigration was not a problem when the 14th amendment was passed. If you know data such as non-citizens and children who will become citizens in the next 10 years, then the future re-districting can also be planned. We should not compromise the quality of information for political purposes. Clean data will lead to better options and a transparent redistricting process. The parties can fight later on the use of this data. Undercount can be avoided by assuring people that this will not be used for any other purpose. We have 20M people living without documents, they will not be intimidated by a census worker.
7
Independence of our country started as a revolt against taxation without representation. Even when nonvoters can't vote they pay taxes; even children pay taxes in the form of sales tax on goods net consume. Counting nonvoters in the apportionment of elected seats, even when they themselves can't vote, allows for their indirect representation. Not counting them at all is against the founding principles of this country.
8
@Independent Citizen they are not held accountable for the same tax laws as citizens and, if here working in violation of immigration laws, are never prosecuted for tax evasion as a citizens would be. Essentially they are exempt from laws citizens are prosecuted for. If they are not taxed as citizens; not held to the same responsibilities to the general welfare, then why should they have representation.
18
@CNNNNC
"If they are not taxed as citizens; not held to the same responsibilities to the general welfare, then why should they have representation."
Simple answer to Originalists? That's what the Founders wanted, and it's clear in the Constitution.
And in reality, that's all that matters, regardless of other very valid reasons.
2
@CNNNNC
A resident alien pays all the taxes as that are paid by a citizen, every cent of it. Anyone who gets wages pays social security and Medicare even if they are not eligible to receive those benefits. Yes, illegals possibly work on cash wages, but so do many citizens to avoid taxes.
And children have a lot at stake about how we are governed in the future; laws made today will impact them a lot more than a fifty-year old politician making those rules.
4
Your analysis dismisses the concerns and diminishes the rights of Citizens and, by fiat, grants those ineligible to vote essentially equal standing by virtue of their power to diminish the value of each real Citizen’s vote. The point of including non-Citizens in the census is to place a claim on additional financial and political resources in a blatant political power grab. This issue coupled with a permissive view on illegal immigration seems a cynical plan to forever change the US electorate.
48
@Toni
Children, though ineligible to vote, are still citizens, and thusly entitled to representation. This is what the article was about.
What is a 'real Citizen', capital C, anyway?
A self-appointed 'superior' who has the right to determine the worthiness and innate equality of those citizens they dislike?
3
What we learned in the 2018 election is that voter suppression can be effectively nullified by increased voter enthusiasm. The Dems need to do whatever they can to increase the ability of registered voters to get to the polls and actually vote, and cure the apathy of the many potential voters who believe they will never be listened to.
It might be nice if the Times reported occasionally on how well--or how poorly--this is being done.
11
@Al Luongo
Ironically, what we are also learning is that the non-documented population has grown so large as to be influential in political representation.
Every modern country has on their census forms questions of citizenship. It is not a divisive issue.
Here's in Canada's census questionnaire. They not only ask about Canadian citizenship status, but also what other citizenships the person holds. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2016/ref/questionnaires/questions-eng.cfm
14
We need to know how many foreign nationals, and from which countries of origin, are residing here. The census is the only way to collect that data. How we use the data to inform voting districts is a completely separate issue. Collect the data, it is useful for all sorts of issues. Then fight about which numbers can be used to draw election districts later.
52
There are two issues here. One is the census getting accurate data on valid questions such as size of household and, yes, citizenship. The other is the way in which census data is used to draw voting districts. It seems to me that the citizenship data could be used or not used and that that is a valid issue but does not mean the data shouldn’t at least be collected.
42
I guess the question is this: Are elected representatives responsible only to certain people in their constituency, that is, only those who vote or are eligible to vote? If so then allocating representatives accordingly is the right solution.
Conversely, if representatives are responsible for the needs and well being of the entire polity that lives within their districts, then everyone should be counted.
We've been dealing with these questions in one form or another at least since the three-fifths compromise. As George Orwell put it,"All [of us] are equal, but some . . . are more equal than others." It is about power, who gets it, who keeps it, who wields it over others. The discussion today sounds a lot like pre- Civil Rights Act conversations.
14
@Charles Tiege
So, would you include tourists? How about cruise ship employees on shore break? Visa overstayers, people who came in on a 6 month visa but are still here? Any cutoff -- not counted during their visa period but counted after they have been here for a month overstay or six or 12 years?
Obviously, there has to be some distinction drawn between residents and transients unless you would argue that transients should get representation. I would argue that some who is not a citizen or legal resident of this country and still very much a citizen of their own country -- no matter how long they have been here -- is still a transient. We just haven't deported him/her yet.
39
@Kurfco
Transients are by definition not residents. While they are anywhere in the USA they are subject to our laws, and they are entitled to the protection of our laws. I think what your are getting at are quasi permanent resident transients, and yes they are a problem.
1
The author's assertion that the the "ultimately, the authors of the 14th Amendment chose to continue counting everyone" is untrue.
The 14th Amendment sates: "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."
Most Native Americans were not taxed when the 14th Amendment was written because most were not citizens. And since they were not citizens, they were not counted in the census Most Native Americans were excluded from the census until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens.
The framer's clear intent was to exclude noncitizen from the census count and from representation in the House of Representatives.
35
@William Case
They weren't taxed *because of the Constitution*. Read it, and other history as to how they became counted.
"“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 he determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding lndians not faxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The exact enumeration shall he made within three years after the first meetings of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.,’ "
1
The Constitution isn’t clear that congressional seats must be apportioned by total population, as the article asserts.
Article I, Section 2, says representation in the House of Representatives shall be apportioned based on the “whole number of free persons,” not total population. At the time the constitution was written, all free persons residing in the United States were accorded citizenship. However, Article 1, Section 2, excluded millions of slaves and Native Americans from the census because they were not accorded citizenship. (Most Native Americans were not counted in the census until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made the citizens.) The clear intent was to exclude noncitizens from the census count and from representation in the House of Representatives.
21
So my tax paying, legal resident neighbor from Canada (who appears to be, in my judgement, a “whole person”) should not be counted in the census?
@WJM
No, because they are counted as part of the Canadian census.
2
Of course it is appropriate for the census to count all residents. It is also appropriate to learn how many are citizens.
The only people who fear a census question on citizenship are illegal immigrants and politicians who want their votes.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL aliens; i.e., foreigners in the US illegally. We cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. It is therefore utterly impossible for US taxpayers to support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners (aliens) to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally (i.e., illegal aliens) and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal aliens, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, abuse, etc. Many believe bringing children on the dangerous journey to enter the US illegally is child abuse.
Failing to ask about citizenship on the census makes no sense.
We will lose the 2020 elections if open borders are part of the Democratic platform.
91
The Census needs to count and reasonably categorize everyone, whatever their age or immigration status. Citizenship, and it seems bizarre to have to point this out, is an important and indeed defining status within any society, so as many countries routinely do during their decennial enumerations the count is parsed this way and in many other ways. No one should fear for telling a census worker their immigration status. This us what the privacy laws are for and the 75-year rule for publication. Redistricting, on the other hand, is a purely political question as the history of partisan gerrymandering shows, with whatever party having the power drawing maps to disadvantage their adversaries.
33
@Mon Ray There are many problems with your thoughts. If I am fleeing for my life, should I be denied the right to wait in the safety of the US for my asylum hearing?, or should I be returned to Iran, Russia, or China (or - insert country here). It would appear that you feel they can wait safely at home for the letter to arrive that gives them permission to return to the US. You flee Cuba, get your asylum filed in the US and then the US returns you to Cuba to wait. Does that sound good to you?
2
@Mon Ray Nobody is advocating open borders. And actually, there is no point or obligation to debate a pantry full of false premises. I thought formulating 'policy' based on lies, slander, and bigotry was a gop/trumpian speciality.
3
US citizens are the ONLY ones who should have political power in the US. And EVERY ONE should get a vote unless he/she lost it after being convicted of a serious crime or something like voter fraud. Children never had a vote - that includes children who are citizens, children who are residents, and children who are here illegally. Anyone here illegally should get no political representation whatsoever.
It needs be a crime to give away the country to people who are not citizens. And it needs to be an equal crime to disenfranchise its citizens. All of the garbage about making it easy for rich property owners to vote and difficult for working class citizens needs to end. Its a crime and it will tear this country apart.
64
@anae
Your comment should have been written in the past tense. You pretty well have the Citizens United States of America. Your country is rent asunder. Congratulations.
@anae "Children never had a vote"... and yet they have always been counted in the census.
To Emily Badger: Any place which does not count children assumes that children will grow and depart by the time of the next census. Such pessimism is characteristic of useless conservatism. We will not know its accuracy for a long while. Better, therefore, to remedy causes for pessimism. There is a cruder way of putting it, but thinkers know the point. A political cliché with no thought behind it is not a rational or appropriate response to depopulation problems.
Pessimism without remedying causes is a reason for getting out of politics. Getting out of politics is, ladies and gentlemen, voting. Useless politicians require a push.
2
@MAX L SPENCER
To Emily Badger: Any place which does not count children assumes that children will grow and depart by the time of the next census.
Max- Please explain that for me. I can't get it to make sense as stated.
"Conservatives" are very interested in disempowering, and dehumanizing, those who will not be adding to their personal, and organizational, coffers. Rights will be assumed, and increased, for the well-to-do, but basically eradicated for those who are living on the edge, which is currently at least half of our current population. They want to spend our money on war and tax avoidance, rather than public service, health care, education, food and shelter, for a majority of people. And, they don't want any of those people to have any say in how our resources are used. We have plenty of money to ensure the well being of everyone in our country, which will never threaten the standard of living of the top 40%, but will make for a safe, secure, productive population, and we will still have the most effective military in the world, possibly without all the attendant corruption and abuse. Those two Texas voters are obvious xenophobes, who don't think their neighbors, including the children, should be counted as human. Perhaps, we should keep ALL the non-voting residents in cages? Will that include those who just don't vote?
9
'Non citizens' are citizens of a foreign country. Why should foreign citizens have political influence? Isn't foreign influence in our government illegal?
We want to use foreign influence in government against Trump but its ok for foreign citizens living here legally and illegally to influence politics?
67
@CNNNNC Not quite. Legally permanent residents (green card) are non-citizens too. They are running businesses, often employing American workers, paying taxes, contributing to communities and so forth. They may not be able to vote, but they should be counted and represented as well.
5
@CNNNNC There are legal residents in the US that are not citizens. Green Card holders, people here on HB(#) Visas, students, etc. They use our public parks, hospitals, roads, etc. To not count them or to reduce the funds for the communities in which they work and live only serves to reduce the quality of the same facilities for US citizens. In the end we all loose.
6
@CNNNNC
That's a bit simplistic. Foreign citizens may acquire American citizens in the future. Current American citizens may abdicate their citizens or, more morbidly, die soon. At the state and local level, an American citizen can easily move between voting districts.
Foreigners can not vote and can not make political contributions, so they already can't have much influence.
And are you seriously saying the President (potentially) colluding with a foreign country like Russia is as bad as counting a non-citizen in the US census, which is required by the Constitution to count all people?
If, as many people want to claim, the Constitution should be followed explicitly, the census count is all persons, not just citizens, not just eligible voters. As the article notes correctly, "the voting population excluded women, children, nonwhites, slaves, immigrants, poor people who owned no land, and plenty of taxpayers."
14
Only people who pay income taxes should be counted in the voting population.
7
@J
I'd call this idea half-baked except it's not even that well thought out. Does that mean everyone must disclose his/her tax returns? Are foreign workers given the vote? Is the window counting a tax payment 1 year, 5 years, or what?
Does that net out government benefit, meaning seniors living on SSI would't have a vote? Is the netting per-period or cumulative? What about property tax, payroll tax, and sales tax?
And most intriguing of all, the current president may not count since all public information suggests he's generated so much loss that he may never have to pay income tax.
12
@J Nonsense. Those whose income comes from Social Security payments do not pay income tax in most states and yet they are voters.
3
@J undocumented workers pay income tax, it's deducted from their paychecks.
4
If there's anything the Trump presidency has taught us, it's that white people matter more than others.
And not only those who are trying to cross the border, but those who are already here and have been for generations.
Like it or not, we're moving backwards towards the days of Jim Crow and white supremacy at an alarming rate.
That's why the census question about one's immigration status is now front and center and will have devastating results on city and state budgets if allowed to pass.
Not to mention the effect it will have of further dividing a country already on the verge of splitting apart.
This danger is very clear. And very present.
29
@N. Smith This does not make sense. People who have been in this country for generations would be defined as citizens... Answering census questions will not divide the country.
11
If conservatives get their way, and children are excluded from the census, that will codify what they've promulgated all along--that once a child has been born, that child's existence is of no consequence to them. I wonder if a pregnant woman will count for 2 citizens in their new census? Somehow, I doubt that.
61
"Joseph Fishkin, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said, “We have really had this conversation before.” Framers of the Constitution and members of Congress have repeatedly concluded that everyone should count."
If this is true, then the only way to allow reapportionment of congressional seats by citizenship would be by another constitutional amendment. If so, asking for citizenship status on the census is irrelevant. Or does it only apply to state legislature seats? A little confusing....
3
The issue would be redrivting state legislators. In effect most cities would lose representatives at the state house and the Rural would gain. Ie more republicans and less dems in state houses/senates. On average.
3
@Eero: If true? It is true. Professor Fishkin, no fool, has stated no basis for confusion.