Citizenship Question Causes Uncertainty On Census Or Something

Some people are pretty upset that a question will ask if people are citizens

(The Hill) Uncertainly is swirling over whether the Census Bureau will be able to get an accurate population count for the 2020 census, as the agency considers a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to add a controversial question about citizenship status to the census questionnaire.

The stakes are enormously high.

Census data is used to redraw House districts, and the number of House seats each state receives also plays a part in determining each state’s number of electoral votes.

Experts say a citizenship question could seriously skew the numbers if people are too frightened to respond.

It’s simple: if you aren’t here legally, you should not be counted. Heck, if you are here legally as someone on a visa or some sort of temporary status, you shouldn’t be counted. The only ones who should be counted are citizens and permanent legal residents.

But given Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, experts say the question would likely make Latinos, who are already hesitant to answer the questionnaire, even less likely to respond.

“We know that 7 percent of the population are people who are foreign born, but not citizens, which is about 22 million undocumented and documented people,” said William Frey, a senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.

And those 22 million should not count. Their presence should have nothing to do with the census, which apportions House seats and federal money, among others. However

Vincent Barabba, who served as director of the Census Bureau during the Nixon and Carter administrations, said citizenship isn’t part of the constitutionally mandated census.

“The Constitution says it will be a census of the inhabitants of the states,” he said. “It doesn’t say it’ll be a census of citizens.”

Amendment 14 over-rode part of Article 1, Section 2, which had originally stated

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.

That was partly changed to

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.

It says to count them, however, it doesn’t say they have to be used to determine House apportionment. In fact, Article 1, Section 2 gives Congress the power to direct by law. The law can determine who are Persons. Should non-citizens determine apportionment? No.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Citizenship Question Causes Uncertainty On Census Or Something”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Dreamers are still just wetbacks with a pretty name.

  2. Dana says:

    Alas! The constitutional definition simply specifies “free Persons,” which would mean that illegal immigrants would have to be counted.

    I agree that only American citizens and legal permanent residents should be counted, but that’s not what the Constitution specifies.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Yeah, unAmerican and treasonous Con Men hate our Constitution!

    TEACH claims:

    It says to count them, however, it doesn’t say they have to be used to determine House apportionment.

    It doesn’t? It seems our 14th Amendment is rather clear:

    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.

    It’s certainly as clear as our 2nd Amendment:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    We think you need a new Amendment.

  4. Jeffery says:

    But this is the way the Nu Cons work. They get around our Constitution by forcing everyone to answer the question about status.

    It’s the way they suppress voters by forcing everyone to have “papers”.

  5. Professor Hale says:

    This isn’t that hard. Everyone should be counted. And their status determined and reported. Apportionment is based on number of citizens alone. Other federal spending can be based on number of visitors and aliens, farm animals, migratory birds, or whatever, etc. The people who wrote and passed the 14th amendment never envisioned that people in the USA would some day be so stupid to apply it to foreign citizens. If this causes people to wish to evade being counted, I don’t care. I suspect somewhere around 15 congressmen in California are there based on the census strength of illegal aliens. And those same votes count in the electoral college in the Presidential election. Thus, without a single illegal alien ever fraudulently casting a vote, their strength is offsetting the legal votes of whole states of actual Americans. And most illegal aliens live in majority Democrat states.

    • Dana says:

      Unfortunately, apportionment is based upon population, as specified by the Constitution. Perhaps it should be only citizens, but it isn’t.

      When the 14th Amendment was written, we had completely open immigration, and wanted it that way. Other than some late 19th century restrictions on the immigration of Chinese ‘coolies,’ our first general immigration restrictions date from the 1920s.

  6. Jeffery says:

    So conservatives now FAVOR the concept of our Constitution being a “living” document?

    It’s almost as if people use our Constitution as a tool to support their personal beliefs.

    We have well-understood mechanisms for amending our Constitution. Only 34 state legislatures are needed to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention to propose new Amendments! Republican controlled state legislatures are close to that number now – just think, you can get rid of all non-whites, ban abortion, ban income taxes, ban liberals, make Christianity the official state religion, make machine guns easier to own, balance the budget etc. The sky’s the limit!

    Politically, we have another mechanism for bypassing our Constitution: we can elect like-minded politicians to control the White House, the House and Senate, who can construct a majority Supreme Court and Federal Courts.

Pirate's Cove