About that citizenship census question: moving the Overton Window
I recently went into some depth on the history of the citizenship question in the US Census:
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 [the theory being that illegal immigrants will be undercounted because they won’t participate in the census].
SCOTUS actually punted on this one, but the practical result is that the delay will make it very difficult for forms to be printed if the federal government decides to include the question, because a ruling won’t be coming down in time.
There have been conflicting reports on whether the government will go ahead with the question or not.
This story is an excellent example of moving the Overton Window ever leftward, something in which the Obama administration specialized. You might even say it was the goal of that administration—the fundamental transformation of America, or at least of the mental map Americans have towards a host of issues.
Prior to Obama, although I’m virtually certain the left was working on getting people to consider a citizenship question to be some sort of offense against the “undocumented,” nevertheless such a question had long been included, although in more recent years it had only been asked of a sample of respondents. It was Obama who changed that by eliminating the question entirely:
Barack Obama was the first President to exclude a question on citizenship in the U.S. Census.
But today, the Trump administration is being assailed from the Left for its efforts to include the question.
The Left has responded typically, with accusations of racism. The question of nationality, they claim, is a danger to immigrants.
Any problem exists only for those people previously known as “illegal aliens,” who then started to be called “illegal immigrants” (the beginning of an Orwellian Overton Window shift on this) and now often labeled “undocumented” by the left in a further refinement of the re-labeling process. But that does not change the fact that the government has a valid interest in asking such a question, and it’s the same interest it always had all the many years such a question was considered standard and unobjectionable.
More:
NPR, quoting the Urban Institute, says the census threatens to put “more than 4 million people at risk of being undocumented.” The headline warns the addition of the question could lead to “worst undercount of black, Latinx people in 30 years.”
But the framing implies Trump is the first U.S. President to include a question on citizenship, when in fact Trump is simply following the established and understandable tradition of asking those who fill out the form if they’re actually Americans.
The charge against Trump is one that demands reframing – Obama was the first to not include a question on citizenship, naturalization, or nativity in almost 200 years. The Trump administration is simply undoing Obama’s 8-year effort to distort the status quo.
Obama’s own efforts to not ask the question was limited to the 2010 Census. From 2009 to 2016, the former president’s Census Bureau had no problem asking anyone if they were Americans on all eight of his annual ACSs (American Community Survey), which targeted smaller demographics key to the success of the Democrats in the eight years of his administration.
The ACS even asked the question in both English as well as Spanish.
American Community Survey (Census Bureau).
I’d love to see a poll asking people whether they believe this question would be originating with Trump—in other words, whether they think the question is new, and if not, when they think it stopped being asked. My guess is that most people have already bought the idea that it is Trump who is changing the usual practice on this, and don’t even realize that the change was really with Obama.
This is typical of how the left is approaching everything Trump. Obama made a change to historic practice, often without legal justification. When Trump changes it back, they howl that it’s illegal. In this case, it’s perfectly legal and routine. People who are not citizens will answer “no,” including lots of people with green cards whose presence is entirely legal.
If you look up any Census Bureau analysis, you will see that they always adjust for undercounting. “[M]ore than 4 million people at risk of being undercounted” is just another red herring.
“more than 4 million people at risk of being undocumented.”
What does that mean?
Citizenship question causing an uproar in U.S. has been part of Canada’s long-form census since 1901
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/census-citizenship-question-1.5199780
The reasoning behind this is similar to voter fraud. If you don’t look for it, you won’t find it. Some states will issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. With this register for voting is easy. Guess who pushes for this?
These Dems/Progs need a glass belt buckle, to see where they are going with their head embedded.
Just now seen: Michael Coudrey — “BREAKING: AG Barr says Trump admin can legally add citizenship question to census”
https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey/status/1148318449355018240
Good. Just do it.
sdferr:
Cue the gnashing of teeth, wailing, and vows of “resistance.” Cue also the men in black robes (not sackcloth and ashes).
“At risk of being undocumented”
How are they “at risk” of being “undocumented” if they weren’t already undocumented? Talk about Orwellian.
om, heh. Yep.
Cue furthermore heaps of ignoring the vicious buggers.
Barry Meislin pointed to a story about the Brit ambassador Sir Kim Darrock a couple of days back (https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/07/05/on-the-fine-art-of-describing-something-before-it-occurs/#comment-2441593).
Seems Pres. Trump has just PNG’d the guy. Once again I say: good. Just the ticket.
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-us-will-no-longer-deal-with-british-ambassador-after-leaked-anti-trump-cables
Ray; FOAF:
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.
“Undocumented” used to mean not having your documents or not having registered and gotten documents, but it had nothing to do with whether you would have been entitled to get those documents. Then it changed to mean “people who don’t have documents AND don’t qualify to have them, but we’ll pretend they just lack the documents and that that’s the only problem.” And then in that sentence about the census, they use it to mean (my best guess) “uncounted in the census.” That can negatively affect a lot of things dear to the Democrats’ hearts, such as the amount of representation districts with a lot of illegal aliens have in legislative bodies.
One of the craziest about this is that the Left speculated that people wouldn’t complete the census merely based on the fact that the question was on the form. The Left had expert testimony to that effect, but it is still speculation.
Bill Clinton plays at impersonating Sgt. Schultz: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-clinton-knows-nothing-about-financier-jeffrey-epsteins-terrible-crimes-former-presidents-spokesman-says
Not sure it’s accurate to say that Obama had the citizenship question removed in the 2010 census. It had been a question on the long form only and in 2010, there was no long form, only the short form:
And on the ACS website it says this:
ACS website: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/citizenship/
So many good, thoughtful comments. I, too, read tons of census forms for my genealogy hobby and the Citizenship question (or often referred to as ‘Naturalization’ question) goes all the way back to the 1800’s. Place of birth was also asked of household members and if someone other than obvious family was living there, status had to also be designated : laborer, farm help, etc. In one of my families, two persons, husband and wife were listed as: Boarders; born in Ireland. That was terrific information to find!
Neo, you have written most informative piece not found anywhere else! CCB
neo on July 8, 2019 at 6:58 pm said:
Ray; FOAF:
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.
The Left is adjusting the Overton window by the deliberate promotion of ideas outside of it with the intention of making less fringe ideas acceptable by comparison.
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…
From the 1940 census form:
*Column 15: “PLACE OF BIRTH.”
*Column 16: “Citizenship of the foreign born.”
I remember getting my license when I was 16. My parents are immigrants and I bet they clearly remember the day they earned their citizenship.
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’m with Cornhead. For a momentous decision like excluding this very nationally pertinent and important question from the form, BASED ON PURE SPECULATION, is ridiculous.
And, if the court believes that inclusion would have a political motive, does it also believe that exclusion is a-political? C’mon, that’s absurd: of course each side of the argument has politics as the motive. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the truth of that is a dolt.
So, (were I the judge), I’d figure that those opposing motives cancel each other, and I’d try to base my decision purely on the law. Which the court did, and concluded that the agency has the legal authority to include the question.
So long as that is true, then that it may serve also some other objective is (or should be) neither here nor there.
“My guess is that most people have already bought the idea that it is Trump who is changing the usual practice on this, and don’t even realize that the change was really with Obama.”
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!!
Ray Van Dune:
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.
(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.