When the decision was announced in March, it ignited an explosion of condemnation by the media and political opponents. Lawsuits followed rapid fire. The issue ended up in the laps of the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 further study was required but did not reject the idea of a citizenship question.
This issue died a natural death but during the ruckus a swamp of misinformation oozed from the media, alleged fact-checkers and opponents that poisoned the national debate. Facts were trampled in the stampede to disparage the Census question. It is time to set the record straight.
The Census did include a question on citizenship for 130 years from 1820 to 1950 as part of the so-called short form survey. Fact-checkers, such as the biased website Snopes which disguises itself as non-partisan, claim it was the absolute last time citizenship was ever raised in a Census survey.
That is a clever equivocation. It is true that the citizenship question is no longer on the short form. However, the citizenship question continued to be part of the longer survey distributed to one in six American households through 2000. It survives even today in another extensive Census survey.
After 2000, the Census Bureau initiated a new annual detailed study called the American Community Survey. It goes to about 3.4 million people (about 2.6% of the population) and inquires about a person's citizenship. It is false to contend the question is no longer asked of Americans.
Opponents' chief argument is including a citizenship question would result in an under count of Americans. Their contention is minorities (mainly Hispanics) would fear revealing their status. But apparently they have no problem with respondents being asked about their country of origin.
Today's short form Census contains a question about whether the respondent is of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Hispanic origin. The survey does not inquire about country of origin for areas which are not Hispanic majority. That smacks of discrimination. Why no complaints?
Asking the question only of Hispanics logically might intimidate minorities, right? Might people worry revealing their origin raises citizenship problems? If your country of origin is Mexico, in particular, wouldn't you be afraid to answer? Not a peep from the ACLU over the issue.
What the media, opponents and fact-checkers fail to report is by law the Census information cannot be publicly disclosed or shared with government agencies including immigration enforcement. The rule prevents revealing personally identifiable information until 72 years after the survey.
To make this crystal clear to partisan Democrats, even if the Trump Administration wanted to collect citizenship data to deport illegals in the country it would be illegal and certainly would be rejected by the courts. Have you ever heard this fact reported in the mainstream media? Crickets.
So why the hubbub about the citizenship question? As often is the case in politics, this is about money and power. The short form Census survey data is used to determine the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives and for the allocation of certain federal funds.
According to Election Data Services, current population trends indicate the 2020 census will likely result in Texas and Florida seeing the biggest gains in seats. Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Montana and Oregon will potentially add at least one House seat.
Meanwhile, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia will lose at least one seat. New York may drop two seats. California and Minnesota are each facing the possibility of losing up to a single seat.
Can you spot the trend here? Many Blue States are looking at the political prospect of losing House seats and federal dollars. A number of Red States will have a positive net change. This entire rumble over the Census has nothing to do with privacy or protecting minority rights. It is POLITICAL.
With a potential $675 million in federal funds and House seats up for grabs, Democrats want to jigger the Census results through the counting of illegal immigrants. Like voter ID laws, the citizenship question preserves the integrity of the process. Isn't that in every American's best interest?
This issue died a natural death but during the ruckus a swamp of misinformation oozed from the media, alleged fact-checkers and opponents that poisoned the national debate. Facts were trampled in the stampede to disparage the Census question. It is time to set the record straight.
The Census did include a question on citizenship for 130 years from 1820 to 1950 as part of the so-called short form survey. Fact-checkers, such as the biased website Snopes which disguises itself as non-partisan, claim it was the absolute last time citizenship was ever raised in a Census survey.
That is a clever equivocation. It is true that the citizenship question is no longer on the short form. However, the citizenship question continued to be part of the longer survey distributed to one in six American households through 2000. It survives even today in another extensive Census survey.
After 2000, the Census Bureau initiated a new annual detailed study called the American Community Survey. It goes to about 3.4 million people (about 2.6% of the population) and inquires about a person's citizenship. It is false to contend the question is no longer asked of Americans.
Opponents' chief argument is including a citizenship question would result in an under count of Americans. Their contention is minorities (mainly Hispanics) would fear revealing their status. But apparently they have no problem with respondents being asked about their country of origin.
Today's short form Census contains a question about whether the respondent is of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Hispanic origin. The survey does not inquire about country of origin for areas which are not Hispanic majority. That smacks of discrimination. Why no complaints?
Asking the question only of Hispanics logically might intimidate minorities, right? Might people worry revealing their origin raises citizenship problems? If your country of origin is Mexico, in particular, wouldn't you be afraid to answer? Not a peep from the ACLU over the issue.
What the media, opponents and fact-checkers fail to report is by law the Census information cannot be publicly disclosed or shared with government agencies including immigration enforcement. The rule prevents revealing personally identifiable information until 72 years after the survey.
To make this crystal clear to partisan Democrats, even if the Trump Administration wanted to collect citizenship data to deport illegals in the country it would be illegal and certainly would be rejected by the courts. Have you ever heard this fact reported in the mainstream media? Crickets.
So why the hubbub about the citizenship question? As often is the case in politics, this is about money and power. The short form Census survey data is used to determine the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives and for the allocation of certain federal funds.
According to Election Data Services, current population trends indicate the 2020 census will likely result in Texas and Florida seeing the biggest gains in seats. Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Montana and Oregon will potentially add at least one House seat.
Meanwhile, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia will lose at least one seat. New York may drop two seats. California and Minnesota are each facing the possibility of losing up to a single seat.
Can you spot the trend here? Many Blue States are looking at the political prospect of losing House seats and federal dollars. A number of Red States will have a positive net change. This entire rumble over the Census has nothing to do with privacy or protecting minority rights. It is POLITICAL.
With a potential $675 million in federal funds and House seats up for grabs, Democrats want to jigger the Census results through the counting of illegal immigrants. Like voter ID laws, the citizenship question preserves the integrity of the process. Isn't that in every American's best interest?
No comments:
Post a Comment