“…the U.S. census has never before directly asked for the citizenship status…”

(My boldfaced type.)

“Directly.” The devil is in the details.

Combining two questions so as to, in effect, ask a third is specifically asking the third indirectly.

I agree that the administration hasn’t done enough to publicize the history of the question. But (as I wrote in my post) it wasn’t included in the census for everyone in recent years. The argument made by those opposing the question is that it hasn’t been included for everyone since 1950, and that’s correct. Since then, though, it’s certainly been included, but for samples of the population, such as 1 in 6.

Obama took any such questions out entirely, as far as I know. But Trump wants to put it back in for everyone, which is a change even from before Obama.

Also, there are semantics involved. For example, opponents of the question often talk about a “citizenship” question, but here’s the quote from an article I quote in my post above that explains further, “Obama was the first to not include a question on citizenship, naturalization, or nativity in almost 200 years.” So, for example, sometimes the question was about where a person was born and whether that person was naturalized. I have done genealogical research and I can say for a fact that the 1940 census asks for birthplace and then “citizenship of the foreign born,” for example. So technically not everyone was asked “Are you a citizen?”, but of course they all were being asked that. In 1930, the census asked for place of birth and whether the person was naturalized. Again, the exact question wasn’t “are you a citizen?” But the exact equivalent of that question was asked by combining those 2 questions. That was a typical way to do it for many years.

And yet you can find articles like this one at NPR that says (and this is a direct quote): “In fact, the U.S. census has never before directly asked for the citizenship status of every person living in every household.” I’m not sure whether that’s true or not in the literal sense, but it was certainly effectively untrue during many many years.

The publicity from the left drowns out that from the right in terms of sheer numbers and sources, because the MSM is so strongly on the left. And yes, the right hasn’t made the history clear. But the left has approached this by trying to make it seem as though the Trump question is FAR more of an aberration than it actually is.

How can you expect otherwise, when the fact that Obama TOOK IT OUT has only come to light in the last week, after months of the issue being framed as Trump PUTTING IT IN?! If the White House can’t communicate any better than that we are gonna get rolled every time.

Most people consider me intensely interested and well informed on current political issues, but I had no idea what the real history of the question was. I assume our side will use the best arguments in our favor, but apparently I am a Pollyanna. Yes, I am disgusted that the media hid that reality, but the White House let them own the issue!!

This issue of illegal aliens, the arguments and language used to soften the issue is a slap in the face to my family. Though I am a social worker, a field riddled with logical inconsistencies and endless supply of modernism as it masks itself with the “science” called psychology, if there’s one thing I’ll be outspoken about at work is to not help the illegal aliens fly under the radar as they collect benefits and privileges that were to be preserved for citizens. It’s not me who entered the wrong field, it’s the very lucky illegal alien who encounters the social worker who doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid. Goodbye benefits, hello ICE.

I cannot help but think that the 23+ Dem presidential candidates spouting extreme left ideas aren’t purposely doing so to soften up the field for a DNC candidate waiting in the wings, & who will enter once the dust settles.

They are making it possible for such a pre-chosen candidate to enter the race without any bruises & not making unforced errors like Biden, Harris, Warren, et al are making. A new candidate will have the advantage of knowing exactly how far left she can be & still get elected.

Dem leaders say that none of the current crop can beat Prez Trump. Some say Oprah could; others say Michelle Obama could. My money is on the latter to enter the race…

It’s another favorite trick of the left. There’s a formal name for it; I think it’s “equivocation.” It’s means that when you mount an argument you use one word in several different ways.
* * *
Very well explained.