Posted on 04/02/2018 5:21:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last Monday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that his state would be filing suit against the Trump administration, not for conducting a door-to-door Eisenhower-style round-up of illegals in the state or even for slapping a coat of paint and some duct tape on a few broken-down sections of border fencing (not that they wouldn’t totally sue for those things), but rather for a simple question the Department of Commerce plans to add to the 2020 Census.
“Filing suit against @realdonaldtrump's Administration over decision to add #citizenship question on #2020Census. Including the question is not just a bad idea — it is illegal,” read a Monday tweet from Becerra announcing the lawsuit.
California is far from alone. New York is suing too, as is several other “blue” states. DNC chairman Tom Perez slammed the question addition as "a craven attack on our democracy." Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder called it an “irresponsible decision.”
Nevermind that the Justice Department ASKED census officials to include the question so they could better enforce the Voting Rights Act. And double-nevermind the fact that the Trump administration never stated that they weren’t planning to actually count non-citizens.
In one of those rare instances where liberals pretend to actually care what the Constitution says, Becerra cites the founding document’s requirement to conduct an “actual enumeration” of the nation’s population every 10 years, regardless of citizenship status, to lend credence to his argument that the Trump administration proposal is somehow “illegal.”
Problem is, asking about citizenship on the U.S. Census is far from new, much less some sinister Trump conspiracy. In fact, prior to the 1960 census, citizenship questions were regularly included on the form, and even appeared on some long-form questions from 1970 to 2000 because, as University of Wisconsin history professor Margo J. Anderson tells CNN, "We passed major new immigration legislation in 1965, and so the question became relevant again."
Which begs the question - when has the issue of immigration and citizenship ever been as “relevant” as it is now?
So obviously, there’s more to all the liberal hyperventilating than that.
Which brings us to the two major reasons liberals are so up in arms about this simple question, and they’re both, well, sooo liberal - Power and public perception.
Power
This one is obvious, and everyone admits it. A January Washington Post headline reads, “Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census could shift power to rural America.” ABC quoted an analyst that stated that, of the 18 seats reapportioned as a result of the 2010 census mainly as a result of the 40 million immigrants therein, “16 went to states that voted for President Obama in 2012,” concluding that “from a partisan perspective, immigration tends to benefit Democrats.”
Becerra’s tweet mentioned above also included a link to his San Francisco Chronicle article entitled, “Citizenship question on 2020 census may result in undercount.” In it, Becerra and Alex Padilla argue that class sizes, homeland security funds, transportation resources, and even natural disaster preparation would be “jeopardized,” and California’s “voice in government diminished” should the 2020 census result in an undercount.
“The Trump administration is threatening to derail the integrity of the census by seeking to add a question relating to citizenship to the 2020 census questionnaire,” write Becerra & Padilla. “Innocuous at first blush, its effect would be truly insidious. It would discourage non-citizens and their citizen family members from responding to the census, resulting in a less accurate population count.”
“California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census,” they continue. “An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college.) It would deprive California and its cities and counties of their fair share of billions of dollars in federal funds.”
Calling the request an “extraordinary attempt by the Trump administration to hijack the 2020 census for political purposes,” Becerra & Padilla argue that “Immigrants and their loved ones understandably are, and will be, concerned about how data collected in the 2020 Census will be used.”
Because Trump, of course.
Reading from the same playbook, Bloomberg writes, “Given the anti-immigrant and anti-minority rhetoric from President Donald Trump and many on the political right, Hispanics, immigrants and members of minority groups probably start by being concerned about answering any survey questions. A citizenship question would only make this problem worse.”
The fact is, illegal immigrants have always been reluctant to fill out U.S. Census forms, to the estimated tune of at least 40 percent, despite massive outreach programs - including signs in immigrant communities that say “NO INS. NO FBI. NO CIA. NO IRS” - aimed at ensuring immigrant communities that the purpose of the form is simply to gather data.
Even so, enough illegal immigrants answer the census for liberals to be rightly concerned about some of their power base. And they’re not wrong to be at least a little worried, which is all the more reason why conservatives should push for this at all costs. While the federal apportionment process is Constitutionally determined, there’s nothing to stop states from using citizenship data to determine THEIR legislative districts, as well they should.
The second reason liberals are hysterical over the citizenship question is one they aren’t likely to admit (but that doesn’t make it any less true).
Public Perception
“Nothing to see here, move on” liberals say, as they insist that the actual number of illegal immigrants has been at around 11 million for well over a decade now, and may even be declining. Illegal immigration isn’t a problem, don’t you know, because there are only 11 million of them and that’s apparently a really small number.
Notwithstanding the fact that 11 million is NOT a small number, it IS a number we’ve all gotten used to. But what happens if even a depressed illegal immigrant census count exposes the number as well over 11 million, especially if you account for the depressed response rate? How will a number of, say, 20 million, or, as Ann Coulter surmises, upwards of 40 million, sit with the majority of Americans?
At this point, might more be willing to support President Trump on a functional border wall to bring the invasion to a grinding halt?
Perhaps Diamond and Silk said it best when discussing the issue on Saturday’s Watters’ World: “They don’t want us to know who is exactly in our country.”
Which is all the more reason to find out.
In the final analysis, counting illegals for the purpose of determining the number of congressional representatives for a state
waters down the voting power of legal residents and citizens not only in that state but in all states.
When a state like California with a large population of illegals gains extra congressional seats based on their heavy illegal population
they gain more power in congress than they would have if illegals were not counted.
In effect that negates, or cancels out some votes in other congressional districts.
And because the congressional district and seat gained that way is justified by the census population count in a geographic area,
the new district will be heavily populated by illegals and most likely will elect a liberal, pro-illegal congressional representative.
After all - those illegals populate areas where they are welcomed and employed by the locals - the same locals who are the legal voters for the district.
You bet the Democrats are mad, they lose counts in the House of Representatives, which is more than enough reason to support it being in the census.
2) The Constitution apportions representation based on population, not on number of citizens, so states' worries about losing representatives are unfounded.
3) The latest freakout on the left about the census is that they removed a question about LGBTQRSTUV persons. That, too, is covered in the annual American Community Survey, so again the freakout is more anti-Trump than genuine concern.
the entire “California Mess” is all about 53 California Electoral Votes
Every 4 years the Dems have to up the quotient of illegals in California to continue to be able to commandeer those 53 votes for Blue Without 53 California EV’s they never win another national election ever
Every time the elections roll around, the probability of California natively going Red rises, as the locals get sicker and sicker of the mess. And Jerry Brown and the Dems just haul more illegals in to stuff the vote. This little stunt is proof
One problem I see....is if this goes to the very end, and the question is asked....there’s going to be a reallocation of House seats.
For example, I expect California to lose three seats. There might be thirty states with changes to occur. So each has to face drafting up a whole new district map. Can you imagine the hassle involved here? You have more, or less seats....then the question comes up....what data do you use to draft the map....with or without the non-citizens? Can you imagine the Supreme Court having to spent most of an entire year haggling over thirty states and their revised maps?
democrats know damned well that they are letting non-citizens vote and take our money through welfare.
A Sovereign nation has evert right to know how many citizens it has. Illegal Aliens have as much right to be represented in Congress as visitors to Disney World.
Nobody’s on board with my idea to count them as three-fifths. :-(
It's much easier to imagine them stamping "Case Refused" thirty times, as they did with PA about a months ago.
I believe the same may hold true for Nevada & New Mexico as well. It could also contribute to Virginia as well.
I worked the 1980 Census and my job was to go through rural trailer parks in central Texas and take census data with them. I had to wear a big button declaring I was with the U.S. government. Almost everyone shut their doors, refused to answer their doors or communicate in any way. I didn’t truly understand it then but I do now. Probably the vast majority were illegals who did not want it to be known that they existed. I presume it is still true today.
Where was Bracerra when this question was on the Census under Bill Clinton. ??? Just getting out of short pants???
By counting non-citizens in an apportionment of congressional seats they disenfranchise American citizen voters. It is a huge shift of power. They want Americans to be diminished so that they are the equivalent of 3/5ths of a voter. No club, business, etc. lets non-members vote to determine their fate, their rules, etc. Never before has the U.S. had so many non-citizens, especially illegal ones.
Non-citizens should not be determining the makeup of our government.
>>Non-citizens should not be determining the makeup of our government.<<
According to the Constitution, non-citizens are entitled to representation. It says to count all the Persons in the country, not just the citizens.
And that would logically include counting all those here illegally.
What the framers didn’t anticipate is a governing body so stupid that it would allow people to enter the country illegally and then stay here indefinitely.
So, you need to think in terms of four classes of people, all of whom should be counted:
1. Citizens
2. Non-citizens with permanent legal residence (parents of citizens who have been granted the right to live here indefinitely, for example)
3. Non-citizens with long-term legal residence (college students for example, or other visa holders.)
4. Illegal aliens
Of those, only illegal aliens should not be represented in Congress or in the Electoral College, but not because they shouldn’t be counted in the census. Rather, they just shouldn’t be here in the first place.
The concern of blue states over adding the question is that it will drive illegals underground when it comes to being counted, costing those states both federal money (allocated based on population) and political power (loss of seats in Congress.) It’s a valid concern, but that valid concern is more than offset by those states’ disregard for federal law and their encouragement to illegals to remain in the country, going so far as to overtly protect them (sanctuary states and cities).
And kudos to President Trump for pushing for the question on the census. It is forcing Democrats to side with illegal aliens, not the most tenable position to take going into a national election.
What do your name, telephone number, age, date of birth, sex, race, whether you are "of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin," whether you rent or own your home, whether you have a mortgage, and whether you have another home have to do with the enumeration of the "number of persons in each state"?
Why do liberals have no problem whatsoever with any of these questions but go into hysterics if you ask about citizenship?
Democrats have two problems here.
Problem #1: As they are arguing, putting the question on the census will cause an undercount of illegal aliens costing their states both federal funding an political representation in Congress and the Electoral College.
That problem could be ameliorated by emphasizing that the census data can’t be used to identify people here illegally. (I’m guessing that’s already the case, but I’m not sure.) But that raises another problem for Democrats.
Problem #2: If they succeed in counting all, or most, illegal aliens we are likely to find that the number is a lot higher than the presumed 11 million we keep hearing. If it turns out to be twice that number, pressure will undoubtedly grow to deport them, and deporting them will definitely cut into the political power of states like California.
So they face problem #1, but fixing it could result in problem #2, the proverbial rock and a hard place, thanks to President Trump.
They have exactly nothing to do with the enumeration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.