Trump calls for new census that doesn’t count illegal aliens
I assume that this is an issue that will be fought in the courts:
President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Commerce to develop “a new and highly accurate census” that does not count illegal aliens.
The idea is that many blue states that welcome illegal aliens have had their representation padded through counting illegal aliens, as well as enhancing their coffers with extra federal dollars. The process of a census is determined this way:
Also known as the Population and Housing Census, the Decennial U.S. Census is designed to count every resident in the United States. It is mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and takes place every 10 years. The data collected by the decennial census determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and is also used to distribute hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds to local communities.
Seems like a census is mandated every ten years but an extra census isn’t banned. Does it have to be justified, and if so to whom, and in what way? And what is a resident; does it include illegal residents?
The Census Bureau has long counted illegal aliens as residents. I’m not sure the Constitution can be a guide here, because originally the laws defining legal and illegal immigration hadn’t been passed. I am immediately reminded of the compromise that counted slaves as 3/5 a person in order to reduce the power of slave states, but illegal aliens aren’t slaves and in any case slavery is illegal. However, the issues are strangely similar, although I doubt that current mores would allow for illegal aliens to be counted as 3/5 of a resident.
This issue isn’t new, but it’s heating up:
During his first term in office, Trump issued an memorandum in 2020 declaring that he “determined that respect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base, to the extent feasible and to the maximum extent of the President’s discretion under the law.”
President Joe Biden issued an executive order in 2021 which revoked Trump’s memorandum, but Trump revoked Biden’s order this year.
In 2020, SCOTUS also weighed in, kind of:
The Supreme Court has ruled it is too soon to bring a legal challenge against the Trump administration’s still-developing plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census count used to allocate seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The case is Trump v. New York.
From the ruling:
A foundational principle of Article III is that “an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation.” … The plaintiffs now seek to substitute an alternative theory of a “legally cognizable injury” premised on the threatened impact of an unlawful apportionment on congressional representation and federal funding. Id., at 100. As the case comes to us, however, we conclude that it does not—at this time—present a dispute “appropriately resolved through the judicial process.”
So SCOTUS punted because the damage was merely threatened and had not yet occurred. Would the same be true now? It would seem so. And at the point at which the damage would become actual, and SCOTUS would deign to hear it, I can’t say what the Court would rule. But if I absolutely had to guess at the moment, I would say they wouldn’t rule in Trump’s favor and would use a fairly non-restrictive use of the word “resident.”
OT, but I figure I might as well put it out there…
Remember how Michelle Obama said she was finally proud of America for nominating her husband for President?
And remember how there have been so many persistent rumors about marital discord between them for years, since his terms ended?
How come she was proud of America, but post-presidency, seems less proud of him? The Democrats as a whole certainly seem to love him, having given them 8 years of their favorite recreational drug… power!
And she doesn’t seem to want to have anything to do with politics anymore, after initially dabbling in traditional first-lady healthy-kids stuff, to fawning media approval, of course.
Think about it.
The chances of a mid-decade census being completed and actually changing Congressional apportionment are slim and none. Again, recall that the Constitution vests Congress with determining the manner in which the census is taken. This will go down in flames in the courts.
Not to mention that huge sums of money are spent on the census each decade. Congress, not the president, appropriates this money.
So – enjoy the news cycle. If this is anything more than that, it will be a colossal waste.
The Census Bureau should count everyone, but make an effort to produce a count of illegal aliens and a count of the total population of aliens. Ideally, legislative apportionments at all levels would be according to the citizen population, not the total population.
==
Not to mention that huge sums of money are spent on the census each decade. Congress, not the president, appropriates this money.
==
The Census Bureau’s budget is about $1.5 bn a year at this point.
==
Again, recall that the Constitution vests Congress with determining the manner in which the census is taken. This will go down in flames in the courts.
==
Federal statutory legislation is supplemented with administrative regulations.
==
You’re really bad a this.
A census where ny and california and illinois held on to seats and texas and florida barely gained does that legit to you rhetorical question
In Kansas City, Justice Kavanaugh said he is interested in the standing issue and is frequently assigned to write those opinions.
There is historical precedent for census items asking about country of birth and citizenship. You can find examples of the forms on the ‘net, if you want to verify that.
I would think that moving that question to the ACS shouldn’t change the legal status of asking the question itself, but that’s just a supposition.
https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/citizenship/
IIRC, those former censuses simply used to ask if the named individual had been born in the US, or if foreign born, where and had that person been naturalized.
I would think that specifically asking if the individual was a legal or illegal resident likely would not be appropriate (per 5th Am. re: self-incrimination).
It doesn’t seem to me the 5th Amendment bars asking the question. It does permit a refusal to answer, sure. However, that remains one choice among many others.
I think I’m reluctantly becoming a bit of a revanchist relating many early governmental principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States
So I was looking at voter requirements in the late 1700’s. It appears to be an entirely state’s rights issue, but being a property owner & a tax payer are prominent requirements. Though both of those two requirements start going away before the end of that century.
The tax payer requirement is an interesting concept even for today, but I’m curious about tax payers in say 1780. I’m sure there were state taxes, but I believe all federal taxes were business taxes, i.e. excise taxes. Was the federal capitation tax ever implemented? Probably not.
But if a state is deciding who is a voter, & a person is paying state taxes, that’s all that matters… presumably.
It is such a pernicious issue, with Dems flooding the country with illegals.
It is easy to forget that in the early years, the USA was land rich & people poor, in addition to being a military pip-squeak. They gave away land to entice the arrival of immigrants.
I think I’m reluctantly becoming a bit of a revanchist relating many early governmental principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States
So I was looking at voter requirements in the late 1700’s. It appears to be an entirely state’s rights issue, but being a property owner & a tax payer are prominent requirements. Though both of those two requirements start going away before the end of that century.
The tax payer requirement is an interesting concept even for today, but I’m curious about tax payers in say 1780. I’m sure there were state taxes, but I believe all federal taxes were business taxes, i.e. excise taxes. Was the federal capitation tax ever implemented? Probably not.
But if a state is deciding who is a voter, & a person is paying state taxes, that’s all that matters… presumably.
It is such a pernicious issue, with Dems flooding the country with illegals.
It is easy to forget that in the early years, the USA was land rich & people poor, in addition to being a military pip-squeak. They gave away land to entice the arrival of immigrants.
I think I’m reluctantly becoming a bit of a revanchist relating many early governmental principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States
So I was looking at voter requirements in the late 1700’s. It appears to be an entirely state’s rights issue, but being a property owner & a tax payer are prominent requirements. Though both of those two requirements start going away before the end of that century.
The tax payer requirement is an interesting concept even for today, but I’m curious about tax payers in say 1780. I’m sure there were state taxes, but I believe all federal taxes were business taxes, i.e. excise taxes. Was the federal capitation tax ever implemented? Probably not.
But if a state is deciding who is a voter, & a person is paying state taxes, that’s all that matters… presumably.
It is such a pernicious issue, with Dems flooding the country with illegals.
It is easy to forget that in the early years, the USA was land rich & people poor, in addition to being a military pip-squeak. They gave away land to entice the arrival of immigrants.
Sorry. It took many minutes for those to post from my phone.
I think one of the problems people have in understanding Donald Trump is that they take him at his word too much. Paradoxical, I know. But when he releases a statement like this, both the press and citizens (more than half of them) respond based on the belief that either President Trump or his Administration is 100% behind the statement and totally wedded to the prospect of it becoming reality, ready to commit significant resources to fighting for it.
What if this is just “the next thing?” We look upon many issues as 80/20 issues, where the vast majority of Americans think it’s a good idea, but Democrats inexplicably consider the opposite a hill to die on, like men in women’s sports, or immigration. It wouldn’t hurt to make the Democrats plant their flag against another 80/20 issue. Why not float the idea of a new Census counting only citizens and not illegal aliens? Trump is virtually guaranteed another 80/20 issue. He’s playing the Democrats because of their inchoate rage against him. He’s making them argue for illegal aliens to be counted for Congressional apportionment. Now, there are some people able to say they’re not all that concerned about illegal aliens, BUT they don’t think aliens should figure when it comes to seats in Congress, and that’s a legitimate way to think. Aliens aren’t stakeholders, they’re invaders. Trump is making the Democrats alienate those people, in addition to the Republican on his side.
Watch for Democrats to melt down about another “assault on our democracy,” while Stephen Miller et al, go on the Sunday shows and say Democrats want illegal aliens to not only stay in the country but also have an effect on Congress. Also watch for Karoline Leavitt to say it in press conference after press conference.
If the path is easy for Trump to make this happen, he’s fine with it. If the Democrats make the path hard, they’re just playing right into his hand.
@Bauxite: The chances of a mid-decade census being completed and actually changing Congressional apportionment are slim and none.
Once again, the classic conservative response to any effort at progress. If it doesn’t achieve some major objective immediately — it’s stupid, forget it.
The left doesn’t operate this way. The left just launches probe after probe, attack after attack. If one thing doesn’t work, try another. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Result? Democrats came damn close to turning America into Mexico with Democrats running the show just as the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ran Mexico for most of the 20th Century.
They still might.
Fortunately, Trump is not locked into this loser mentality. He will keep trying, probing and attacking. In this case he is forcing the country, once again, to confront the reality of large numbers of illegals in America, what that means and what we might do about it.
The Constitution certainly does allow for some people not to count in the Census. The 14th Amendment requires “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 it goes on to say that male citizens above 21 who are denied the right to vote (except for rebellion or other crime) do not count in the “basis of representation”, and it specifies a curious mathematical formula that doesn’t seem to include women and minors–the basis of representation (the whole number of persons) is to be reduced by the proportion of citizen males of age not able to legally vote relative to the total number of citizen males of age. So if in your state 5% of citizen males of age couldn’t vote that would mean your representation is reduced by 5% regardless of the proportion of the number of women and minors to the whole, so 5% of women and minors would (implicitly) also not count. Since we no longer have property qualifications this is probably moot anyway.
Other than that it’s to be done by law.
Huxley: “Democrats came damn close to turning America into Mexico with Democrats running the show just as the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ran Mexico for most of the 20th Century.”
The analogy that comes to mind (at least for me) is that the Harlem Globetrotters are to Democrats as the Washington Generals are to Republicans. In both cases, it appears most of them would rather be wealthy, powerful kleptocrats in a poor country than middle class public servants in a rich country. IOW, the Mexican model.
This is what Trump posted on X – https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1953416856309477756
“I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures, and importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential election of 2024. People who are in our country illegally SHALL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
People are concentrating on the illegals not being counted and then being based on election results. But is this really about the new and highly accurate census using modern process, like AI scanning the data and other data bases to verify the information, kick out duplicates, possible errors, etc.?
Prior censuses have had extrapolation of data and adjustments based on what? SO is this a way to clean up the process and essentially eliminate most of the illegals?
If the SSA data base is cleaned up and linked to the IRS files which is linked to another database, then many people will be eliminated from the census since they don’t exist in our databases. If a census takes comes back with a pile of names, that data can be checked against the database.
There were many problems with the 2020 Census count with eight states having relatively large over counts (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Utah) and six states being under counted (Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Illinois). These problems resulted in inaccurate congressional apportionment.
The 2020 Census was the first to be conducted mostly online and also suspended some of its operations due to Covid, which resulted in some inaccurate counts of the population living in Group Quarters (college dorms, nursing homes, barracks etc.). The Census Bureau acknowledges the inaccuracies of the 2020 counts but also notes that these problems can’t be corrected until the next census in 2030.
What used to be the Census long form, which was sent to a sample of all households and asked more detailed questions, was replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS) in 2010. The ACS is an ongoing survey so what used to be included in the long form is now being updated continuously.
There has been so much technological change since the decennial census was mandated by the Constitution for congressional apportionment, that I think the requirement should be amended but that’s probably not likely to happen.
I worked at the Census Bureau for 23 years, for the most part in the population estimates area. To give you some idea of how wrong some of the numbers coming out of the Census Bureau can be, until last year the official estimate of the immigrant population was based on results from the ACS. Yes, we relied on survey data to estimate the population of illegal immigrants. This was changed last year and the previous year’s estimates were corrected.
I’m pretty sure that an algorithm could be developed using AI that could pull data from a variety of administrative records (Social Security, car registrations, utility data etc.) that could result in a more accurate estimate of the total population than is produced by the decennial count (for a fraction of the cost) but I don’t think this would qualify as an enumeration of the population. But it certainly could be used for the population estimates.
If I were named Census Bureau czar, I could probably cut the number of Census Bureau employees (the vast majority of whom are nice conscientious people) by at least 80 percent.
I remember the census bureau, like the student loan program, was one of the government offices that the Obama administration left skid marks rushing to take over about ten minutes after his inauguration. Anything they focused on was employed for grabbing power and money. Any corner of the Augean stables that the Trump administration can clean will be helpful.
Note in subsection (d) the provision (mandate?) for a mid-decade census. It specifically prohibits using the results of this census for the purpose of reapportionment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/141
If people enter the country illegally, do they actually live here or could they be considered visitors? Do people visiting the country get counted in the census? As to asking questions about whether the census can ask questions about country of origin and legal status, don’t forget the framers of the Constitution had the 3/5ths Compromise. It’s not a given that every person inside the country must be counted for purposes of congressional apportionment.
This quintessential Trump: He loves a fight. The fight this time is over Replacement “Theory” which everyone knows is not a theory it’s a Plan. He tried a similar solution in 2021 and was immediately rejected by a commie Federal Judge (but I’m redundant). Instead of fighting he must recognize that the President has NO ROLE in apportionment. It is strictly in the power of the House. Because the Constitution requires an enumeration of People, it is therefore TOTALLY up to the House to define People. Trump cannot tell them what the definition is. If he is smart he will send 2 numbers to the House: the number of citizens and the number of non-citizens. Let the House show the world what number they choose to apportion Representation. Anything else will be rejected out of hand by the lefty judges.
I’m pretty sure Republicans could pass a law, now this year, to authorize & fund a new census. The lack of wording already available indicates this wasn’t a pre-inauguration plan from Trump, but possibly an opportunity to help Reps a lot. It can certainly energize a lot of folk to lean about census laws, and prior irregularities. If it becomes better known that illegals count in the census, that will anger Trump supporters more than a new census will anger Reps.
The $billion or so spent is worth it for better data, and far better than spending it on support for illegals.
Like how Texas gerrymandering increases publicity of partisan Dem unfairness, news about a more accurate census will keep making Dems look bad, for those whose eyes are not closed to the badness.
Looking at the text of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution (partial)
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.
So first issue is that the 3/5 clause is made moot by the 13th amendment as slavery is now forbidden, as is terms of service for a period of years . The “Indians Not Taxed” Portion has been nullified by legislaitve action in the 1920’s so native Americans DO count towards the census. This effectively leaves us with “according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons”. Sadly the direct reading of that is NOT citizens but humans (actually counted/enumerated). It might be possible for the legislature to clarify the meaning to citizen (making changes similar to what it did to include Native Americans). More sure would be a change in the language in the form of a constitutional amendment.
With respect to the inaccuracy of the count the language uses the words count and ennumerate. This does NOT seem to leave slop for the various estimates used in the blue cities. You have to actually count the people. Only people so counted, to be repetitive, count.
Finally the language with respect to whether you can do another census sooner than 2030 says “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.” That implies no more than 10 years between enumerations but Congress may legislate when within that period. So it would seem they could require an enumeration sooner, but it would take legislative action.
Of course, I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.