Issues,  Politics

A Closer Look at the Fight Over the Census Citizenship Question

From /qresearch/, refined by us.

For the first time since 1950, the U.S. Census Bureau is planning to ask everyone living in the United States whether they are citizens when it conducts the next census in 2020. From 1970 to 2000, this question was included on the long form census, which one in six households received.

The census form would use the same wording as what is already used in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The survey does not ask whether non-citizens are legally in the country.

What most news outlets don’t tell you is that this question was actually requested by the Department of Justice, for reasons that they explain below:

Text of Dec. 2017 DOJ letter to Census

Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on Census,…


The Justice Department wanted to include the question because it uses that data about eligible voters – the citizen voting-age population – to help enforce the federal Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department now relies on data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a sample survey that covers 2.6% of the population each year. The department wants more “scope, detail and certainty” that only the full census can provide to enforce the Voting Rights Act, Ross said.

The citizenship question is included in the list of census questions that the Census Bureau sent to Congress this week. But the new question’s inclusion has been challenged in court on the grounds that it could cause many immigrants to skip the 2020 census out of fear their information could be used against them, even though it is illegal to share a person’s census responses with law enforcement or immigration agencies.

lawsuit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra contends that if the census undercounted immigrants, it would be an incomplete population count that violates its constitutional purpose, which is to divide up seats in the U.S. House of Representatives based on the total U.S. population. (Census numbers also are used to allocate billions of dollars in federal funds.) The California lawsuit also says the Trump administration failed to follow government procedures for adding questions to the census form.

The memo above outlines data that suggests that is simply just not true.

According to Pew Research, a Census Bureau analysis said that among non-citizens whose responses to census questions about their citizenship status could be matched with other government records about them, about 30% erroneously said they were citizens. — effectively, they chose to be untruthful about their citizenship status.

Making Sense of the Fight

A legal expert suggests that we need to ask some essential questions about the change.

Does Congress have the power to ask whatever questions it wishes on the census? Yes, provided such questions have a rational basis.

Assume Congress determines a percentage of residents are not citizens. Can Congress exclude them from the apportionment formula? As the law is now, non-citizens are included in the census and no citizenship or legal residency questions are included. That means that illegals are included in the apportionment of Congressional representatives and federal budgets allowed for each state.

While some may argue that it is fair because services are provided and money should be apportioned accordingly, that begs the question: since this population can be legally expelled at any time, should we be counting non-citizens for such things?

More importantly: What is the effect on legal citizens and particularly the right to vote? In apportionment cases, SCOTUS has long made clear that the gold standard is “one person, one vote.” The problem then becomes obvious: since illegal aliens are not entitled to vote but are counted in the census to determine the number of persons in each Congressional district, by definition the “one person, one vote” opinion is violated.

Our expert believes that once the number of non-citizens is identified in the census, the next step is to exclude them from the apportionment formula. This would result in a massive redistricting in RED states and maybe even a permanent loss of power for some Democrats. The SCOTUS would have no choice but to uphold the “one person, one vote” rule.

If you ever doubted the significance of the appointment of Conservative judges, or questioned the President for focusing on the Senate in the 2018 Midterms – understand that none of this happens without those.

You can read more about this issue below.

No Title

No Description

Your Thoughts

%d bloggers like this: