The 2020 census, the Court, and the citizenship question
SCOTUS will be ruling on whether a question about citizenship can be included on the next census:
[It is a question] which critics say would undermine its accuracy by discouraging both legal and unauthorized immigrants from filling out the forms.
So illegal immigrants, who have defied the law to come here and continue to defy it to stay here, are afraid of answering truthfully on a census question and therefore won’t answer and won’t be counted? And for that reason we shouldn’t have the question? I’m no expert on census law, but it seems to me that as long as there is an understandable and valid reason for a question, the mere possibility of discouragement from answering it for some unknown number of people is not a reason for courts to disallow it. There is an obvious bona fide reason for this particular question.
And why would legal immigrants be discouraged?
See also this:
Justice Ginsburg, who appeared to side with the challengers…asked a question that goes to the heart of the matter: Why are the courts involved in this anyway? Congress could prohibit Census questions about citizenship, but it hasn’t:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Letter, the Congress has the primary control over what the census will be, not the executive, and Congress has been alerted to this citizenship question for some time, and it has done nothing about it. So one question is who should decide? Congress is silent. Should the Court then step in? [Tr. 81-82]
Indeed.
I’ve done some genealogical research online about my family, and looked at quite a few census pages in many different years. Questions about citizenship were long a feature of the federal census. Here’s a timeline:
From the first time in 1820 to the most recent in 2000, when only a small sample of households were asked, questions about citizenship on the census have had a history of stops and starts, twists and turns over 200 years.
There’s a chart at the link, describing the changes in the question over the years, with examples. It’s clear that this is not a new question, and that even quite recently it’s been asked of a sampling of households (usually 1 in 6). Why it was okay to ask 1 in 6 but not okay to ask everyone? It seems an obviously valid question to me.
It also seems quite obvious why Democrats and the left are fighting this. They are afraid of what it will reveal. Note, though, that the question does not take the form, “Is this person an illegal immigrant?” The proposed question is the same one that’s been asked of a sample of respondents for decades: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” It is ludicrous to think a nation has no right to ask such a question on its census. If for some reason that nation—the executive branch and Congress, not the courts—decides that in practice the question is actually inefficient and/or discourages responses in general, then those branches of government can decide not to use it again. SCOTUS should not be the branch to make that decision ahead of time, based on some theory about what might happen.
Congress is probably silent because it probably needs both House & Senate to change the census. And it does not have the Senate.
Congress, as usual, gave the responsibility, and most of the daily authority, to the Commerce Dept (??) on the Census. That’s part of the Executive, as usual.
A big part of the legal question should be, “who decides”. Previously, Congress had decided on the bureaucrats, but now the Dems want the courts to block Trump’s bureaucrats.
The failure of Congress to act, when it could, should mean that the Commerce Dept.’s decision to add the citizenship question should stand.
Also, if 5% is the number of under-reports, that sort of implies 5% of 300 mil or 15 million illegals or legal non-citizens.
I seldom hear about how many legal non-citizens there are.
The left constantly tries to conflate legal and illegal immigration, and pretend that people on the right have an issue with legal immigrants; and especially, pretend that people on the right are almost entirely motivated on the issue of immigration by racism.
The left doesn’t want the message out there that most people on the right are fully aware that every single person on this continent is an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants, and all we ask is that if you want to come here, come here legally, follow our laws, support yourself and your household, and assimilate.
It would be nice if the Census struck a blow against racism by eliminating racial questions. My answer “Other: American”
RE: “Congress has been alerted to this citizenship question for some time, and it has done nothing about it. So one question is who should decide? Congress is silent. Should the Court then step in?”
If Justice Ginsberg really feels that way, then she should vote to throw to support the President, but I don’t think that she will. Sadly, as in other matters, Congress has granted authority to the President, but a group of judges in places like Hawaii has decided that this President doesn’t have that authority. If the SCOTUS does not step in, then judges get to re-write laws anyway they see fit because … reasons.
Of course, national identity is not conventionally understood as a race. But since racial identity has been thoroughly debunked, we might as well use the archaic question for reality-based identities. Nationalities, cultural backgrounds, and philosophical leanings reveal infinitely more about us.
Speaking of philosophy, preferring to believe that race is anything more than a social construct (fiction) despite scientific findings to the contrary is dualism run amok. Dualistic overreach is a weakness of the mind. Nondualistic awareness (aka advaita or advaya) cures the ills of divisive ideas like race.
Needless to say, citizenship is a real and meaningful distinction. It is completely appropriate to ask about it.
The answer to this question–if asked–will also determine the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives for each State, and is also used to determine the amount of Federal aid given to each state.
Thus, an additional motive to not want this question asked is that a State that had suffered a substantial loss in it’s citizen population would not want this to be found out, because not only would such a loss reduce the amount of Federal aid their state received, it would also reduce their voting power in the House, because their congressional delegation would be reduced in number proportionate to their loss in population.
The Left’s motivation for opposition are transparently obvious.
But it could be used as a great aid to ICE. Whose agents, according to this article has the power, if so directed by Trump to immediately deport the illegal immigrant sans judicial hearings…
Census returns are confidential for 72 years after the forms are completed. Ancestry.com issued digital images of the 1940 returns just a few years ago.
Art Deco–Census material is pretty dry, and it may not be worth it to breach it’s “confidentiality”
But, in general, does anyone really think that anything is really “confidential” these days, that there are some “sacred” boundaries that are not to be crossed–and aren’t.
If we have learned anything from the last few years, it is that what used to be the traditional boundaries have been trampled down.
So, if someone–in government or out–sees some benefit from accessing and even publicizing what used to be “confidential” information, from the evidence the chances are, they will do it.
It would be delightful if Ginsburg were to vote with the conservative justices on this.
And Democrats continue to conflate legal and illegal aliens. Someone here legally on a non-expired visa or a green card has no reason to fear filling out the form.
Has there been any actual Justice Ginsberg sightings as of late?
The 10 year US census has many uses. One of which is to set up congressional districts based on population for the next 10 years.
So when you have a LARGE Non-Citizens illegally in the country, that tend to gather in certain given Democratic Metro areas. Areas that are willing overlook and illegally harbor them. Then counting them as US Citizen population then becomes a process of manipulating the congressional representation process and abusing taxpayer funds and even Voter Fraud.
Has there been any actual Justice Ginsberg sightings as of late?
She was at Georgetown University last week, speaking at a symposium on gender equality. Even praised Justice Kavanaugh for having a staff of all-female clerks.