The Absurd Politics of the 2020 Census
What’s up with the fear and loathing from the liberal commentariat over the 2020 census? They see a make-believe problem in a planned citizenship question. They allege it is a Republican scheme to identify illegal immigrants in order to deny blue-state electoral votes, congressional seats, and federal funds. The paranoia is being stoked by California Democrats, who need to substitute craft beer for the recreational marijuana. Their paranoia is ruining the DNC.
These paranoid Californians know the decennial census is the purview of the Department of Commerce and the citizenship question came from the Department of Justice, which wants to collect more data to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). They know the VRA prohibits states from passing racially discriminating election laws. They also know DOJ lawyers use the VRA to block red-state redistricting laws by mandating more majority-minority districts. The DOJ claims it needs citizenship information, but California Democrats see a conspiracy (pass the bong, please).
The decennial census takes a data-based snapshot of the USA, and counting non-citizens in residence should be a basic expectation. Before 1960, citizenship was a question, and one in six households still answers the citizenship question on the long-form questionnaire (American Community Survey). Other democracies, such as England and Australia, include a citizenship question in their census; so, how did Democrats conclude there’s an evil plot behind a single question (don’t bogart that joint, my friend)?
Blue-state Democrats claim a citizenship question violates Article I, Section 2 of the US constitution, which mandates “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned…according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined [every] ten years.” Yes, Section 2 requires the census to numerate citizens and non-citizens alike, but it does not prohibit questions about citizenship. There is just no way James Madison would mandate public ignorance of how many non-citizens resided in the USA.
The constitution addressed citizenship: issuing guidance on tabulating “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 to be taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” This clause is the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise that blue-states back in the day used to stop southern states from counting every slave. Furthermore, the constitution mandated some residents, such as native Americans, not be counted. Remember, Cherokee Indians considered themselves citizens of the Cherokee Nation.
Section 2 clearly differentiated between the status of US residents, and a citizenship question will not be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, the left’s only half-legitimate argument is the paranoid supposition that undocumented immigrants will refuse to fill in the blanks and return the survey because they believe answering they are not citizens will lead ICE agents to their door and deportation. In such a scenario, total Texas and California residents will be undercounted: meaning fewer federal funds, electoral votes and members of Congress.
Let’s unpack this argument. Blue-state Democrats, especially in California, believe undocumented immigrants, who broke the law by stealing across the border and acquiring all types of false identification, might truthfully answer the citizenship question: I am not a US citizen. Why not just continue the charade and claim US citizenship? After all, how’s one more false claim going to blemish their permanent record?
Democrat paranoia also envisions undocumented immigrants refusing the census altogether. In this scenario, illegal aliens will hide from the US government and its authorities (in this case, the US Census Bureau). This means the immigrant is knowingly and willfully breaking US law with no plans to emerge from the shadows - until blanket amnesty is granted. If this is the attitude in undocumented immigrant communities, Democrats should demand the real number of DACA residents before they force Dreamer citizenship on the USA.
My personal rebuttal to the liberal argument is how dare Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, support illegal residents over informed citizens. Becerra was one of 44 Democrats in Congress that waived background checks on the Awan family (six Pakistan-born IT employees now under arrest or investigation by the FBI for criminal activity). The Democrat defense is they opposed racial profiling of employees. The Capitol Police beg to differ.
Another rebuttal is how dare Luis Alejo, a Monterey County supervisor, support illegal residents over informed citizens. Alejo was the 2013 author of California Assembly Bill 60, which required California DMV to issue driver’s licenses to over 1 million undocumented immigrants. Alejo is proud: “Today, we see the law [has] dramatically improved the lives of a million immigrants and their families.” The Sacramento Bee begs to differ: a consequence of Bill 60 is that felons now remain in California just by showing their driver’s license to “prove their identity and residence within the state.”
There is a reason US citizens pledge allegiance to the flag: strong nations are overwhelmingly comprised of citizens that appreciate and obey the laws of the land. Citizens appreciate the sacrifice of previous generations to build the USA and defend its freedom. Perhaps Democrats are afraid of what the 2020 census will tell the public and how an informed public will respond. If the census counted 50 million undocumented immigrants, would Democrats expect an informed citizenry to just yawn? Or is that one toke over the line?