Now, there might be a legal challenge to this, and certainly there's political opposition, but what will happen if what the NYT calls "concerns" are elucidated for the general public? Look out. It's a trap.
Critics of the change and experts in the Census Bureau itself have said that, amid a fiery immigration debate, the inclusion of a citizenship question could prompt immigrants who are in the country illegally not to respond. That would result in a severe undercount of the population — and, in turn, faulty data for government agencies and outside groups that rely on the census. The effects would also bleed into the redistricting of the House and state legislatures in the next decade.Did you know that immigrants — including those here illegally — were included in the population count that determines the number of House districts and how many Electoral College votes a state gets? These individuals cannot vote, but — like children and felons deprived of the vote and all the people who could but don't vote — they enhance the power of the people who do vote. Is that right? The census undercount that we're invited to become concerned about is this inflation of the power of those who do vote, so that votes are not equally weighted.
It might be better to allow people to rest comfortably in the belief in the grand principle of one person/one vote.
Posts
106 comments:
That would result in a severe undercount of the population
So the NYT is finally admitting the size of the illegal immigrant population is "severe"?
"Did you know that immigrants — including those here illegally — were included in the population count that determines the number of House districts and how many Electoral College votes a state gets?"
Yes!
"they enhance the power of the people who do vote. Is that right?"
No!
Maybe we can count them as 3/5s of a person.
LOL Sebastian!
I say we start counting illegal aliens as 3/5 of a person.
I see Fritz got there ahead of me.
It shocks me at how brazen the Democrats have become in their attempts to cheat.
I say we start counting illegal aliens as 0/5 of a person.
"The 2020 census will ask respondents whether they are United States citizens, the Commerce Department announced Monday night... agreeing to a Trump administration request..."
Pretty please with sugar on top?
"These individuals cannot vote, but — like children and felons deprived of the vote and all the people who could but don't vote — they enhance the power of the people who do vote."
Now where have I seen this principle before?
"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.
Oh. But, three fifths has at least been inflated to five fifths.
Census numbers are also used to calculate government benefits that counties receive from the feds. The benefits we're assured illegals don't receive.
It's criminal that California, Florida, and New York can use non-citizens to inflate their number of Congressional seats in Washington.
They are using "population" rather than "citizens" and this is a legal loophole that needs to be closed.
Now, there might be a legal challenge to this
By whom? Who would have standing?
Did you know that immigrants — including those here illegally — were included in the population count that determines the number of House districts and how many Electoral College votes a state gets? These individuals cannot vote, but — like children and felons deprived of the vote and all the people who could but don't vote — they enhance the power of the people who do vote. Is that right? The census undercount that we're invited to become concerned about is this inflation of the power of those who do vote, so that votes are not equally weighted.
This echoes the experience of the Grant Administration in the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. When former-slaves were counted as individuals, the power of the Southern states immediately increased proportionally. It was imperative for fairness to ensure that former slaves could vote, otherwise the egalitarian count would unilaterally increase the power of former slave-holders. Jim Crow ensured this actual result.
In this case it is to the advantage of incumbents to increase the population of their districts in ways that doesn't increase the number of voters -- new voters could threaten their base. That's a perverse incentive for an ineffective INS and barriers to citizenship.
This question was asked before and like other information requested, it's a valid thing to know. The question is, SHOULD apportionment be based on the number of legal residents? The constitution doesn't restrict it to that, but those people SHOULDN'T be here and if they weren't, apportionment would only be based on legal residents.
Another question is should apportionment be based on the number of citizens? Again, the constitution doesn't restrict it to that, but a large number of non-citizen residents does distort the concept of one person, one vote.
Frankly, I think there should be a limit to the length of residency by non-citizens. If you plan to live here for the rest of your life and enjoy the benefits of our country, then you should become a full-member of our country and share in the full rights, responsibilities and rewards of citizenship.
"But, three fifths has at least been inflated to five fifths."
At least it got in there fair and square. Fourteenth Amendment, section 2:
"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. . . ."
What makes you think that the illegals will not lie?
They are brazen criminals. Lieing on a census form is not a big deal to Pedro or Mohammed.
Here is another conundrum:
How can a question about citizenship cause an undercount? Census responses are not optional, you are required by law to answer. And we all know that undocumented Americans are the most law-abiding segment of the population. Thus, no undercount.
The NYT and progressives assume illegal immigrants will avoid the census because of this question. So what? Why should CA boost our Congressional representation by counting people who (technically) can’t vote and aren’t Americans?
It's a legitimate question. So tired of the never ending threats and lawsuits to everything the Trump administration proposes.
California most affected and most likely to sue.
Gahrie said...
Now, there might be a legal challenge to this
“By whom? Who would have standing?“
Leftists don’t need standing. They are granted standing by their ultimate moral authority. It is in the constitution.
There is a judge in Seattle or Hawaii that agrees and his order applies to the entire country.
Are you a citizen?
Si.
Making your enemies fight the wrong battles. Of course, illegals will lie. It's not about them, it's about luring the Democrats into defending them.
yeah, because illegals who lie constantly about their right to be here are suddenly going to get scruples and tell the truth on a census form that no one is going to inspect.
Could it be that we are viewing this from the wrong perspective?
The United States provide so much to Mexican citizens -- jobs, infrastructure, social and economic benefits, a functional legal system -- that normally would be considered the responsibility of the Mexican Government.
Therefore, shouldn't the United States -- and therefore the citizenry of the United States -- have a say in the Mexican Government?
Take the census. Ask the question. And then for each Mexican citizen found in the United States, whether legally or illegally, The United States exercises one vote in Mexican government elections.
That should fix a few things. Quite quickly, I would imagine.
Impact of census and over counting of illegals: this is why the big Democrat strongholds favor sanctuary city policies.
-sw
Why does California fight so hard for their illegal immigrant population? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Somehow, I doubt that.
My guess is that California knows something about their illegal immigrant population that they aren't telling the rest of us, e.g. like what number of them vote. I also think that if California was honest about what's going on with their illegal immigrant population it would just blow the lid off the whole discussion.
Saw this earlier:
We need to count them Juan by Juan.
"Oh. But, three fifths has at least been inflated to five fifths."
Remember: counting the slaves as five fifths of a person is what the slave owners wanted. It increased the power of the vote for those who did vote. It would make things worse for the slaves, not better. Those who opposed slavery (or just wanted more power for the non-slave states) wanted the slaves counted at 0.
Three-fifths is shocking because it sounds so obviously wrong, but it was a compromise.
In the immigration context here, the noncitizens cannot vote, but they are counted as five fifths, and that enhances the power of those who can vote in states with a big noncitizens population (equivalent to the slave-state white people).
"By whom? Who would have standing?"
In redistricting cases, a voter whose vote is diluted has standing. So that would be any Californian voter I would think. But they'd have to say I have a better than 1-person-1-vote weight to my vote and I'm going to lose that if these nonvoting people aren't used in determining the number of districts in California.
"What makes you think that the illegals will not lie?"
Those here illegally are (I have read) already afraid that if they are counted in the census, it could be used to hurt them, even though they are assured it will not. The added question will increase this fear of being counted — or so I presume challengers will argue.
The idea of the census should be to get the right number, and a question that will deter participation really is a concern.
I'm just saying there's a trap here: If a challenge is mounted, people will become activated about something they haven't ever thought about that might disturb them.
About frekin' time - isn't it surprising they weren't asking?
Suppose China were to transport 300 million of their citizens to Alaska, arriving before the Census and holding on until the 2020 election campaign. Is it the Democrat position that Alaska would then be entitled to a majority of the representatives in the House?
Democrats... counting slaves counts! Same as it ever was.
The Constitution is not based on "one person = one vote." That is why we have the electoral college, which is working fine and quite as intended.
But imagine a sovereign government asking a question like that of the "persons" it finds residing within its borders? What is the world coming to?
As I understand it, only two states currently ask about US citizenship before granting state residency, and two more are considering doing so.
The rest only ask about length of stay in the state, and most then immediately go on to ask if the persons would like to register to vote while they are at it on the now unwarranted assumption that they already are US citizens. This causes many "immigrants" to quite innocently assume they are entitled to vote. After all, the state asked them to, n'est-ce pas?
I wager this backfires. The government can't count competently anywhere dollars even people. Double entry bookkeeping, what's that? How much money is in the Treasury Gold coin box, who knows and who cares? There's a law prohibiting spending more than you're allocated else jail time. No accounting, no jail Funny accounting system you have their in the US.So after the census we'll be able to subtract the count from an AI predicted count and know roughly how many non-citizens are here. Last I looked there's no penalty for lying on a census form. And don't even ask about employment over or under , employment, hunger or those that don't receive appropriate medical care. it's all a joke, including DOD since any money they don't spend isn't accumulated. Again no accounting, since everything they spend is considered an un-booked loan from Treasury. Write check will travel. No wonder they fear business folk in government. Who without an admin with long term government employment can't install a phone system in a new agency or keep the lights lit.
The 3/5ths of a person is better stated as the price the northern states paid for getting the South to go along with the proposed new "strong" constitution.
I am not sure, but I think the price the South paid was that the 3/5ths also counted for taxation, but then taxation was very minimal at the time and positively no personal income tax was even contemplated.
And 50 years later, the South could see that the 3/5ths person rule was not enough to guarantee the slaveholding states parity in representation, so they rigged up the Mexican landgrab of 1846-48 with the idea of adding Texas, Nueva Mexico, and California to the Union and split them up into enough slaveholding states to ensure a majority in Congress forever.
And then we got the Civil war with an estimated 6-700,0000 dead, and 100 years of Jim Crow.
Maybe we can decide they count as 3/5ths a potential vote.
I knew the comment had probably been done, but I posted it anyway. I'm a terrible person.
> It might be better to allow people to rest comfortably in the belief in the grand principle of one person/one vote.
I am not familiar with this "grand principle." Does it include minors? Convicted felons? Green card holders? Illegal immigrants? Members of the EU? The 1.2 billion Chinese? Last time I looked, these were all people.
Census answers are not given under oath and probably have no legal consequences.
"The idea of the census should be to get the right number of citizens and legal residents"
FIFY
Can Immigration be turned over into a State subject and not Federal?
Is this Constitutionally sound?
"The idea of the census should be to get the right number"
Right in what sense and to what purpose?
AA: In redistricting cases, a voter whose vote is diluted has standing. So that would be any Californian voter I would think. But they'd have to say I have a better than 1-person-1-vote weight to my vote and I'm going to lose that if these nonvoting people aren't used in determining the number of districts in California.
But doesn't that logic give standing to people who don't live in illegal-dense districts, if they wanted to challenge the previous counting practice?
The Commerce Department conducts an annual survey called the American Community Survey (ACS). The citizenship question is asked in that survey.
Between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question about citizenship.
The inclusion of the question will probably make no difference in the response rates- remember- if you don't respond, it is likely you get counted anyway. I would wager that few illegal immigrants return the census forms voluntarily, and I would also wager that few respond to the census taker at the door, too- but then the census taker can simply observe pretty quickly the numbers of people at a residence.
Ms. Althouse is correct though- attacking this question is likely to backfire on publications like The NYTimes because to attack it means you have to basically claim that citizenship itself doesn't matter enough to ask about, which is a position that runs counter to that held by a large majority of the population.
Lincoln pretty much addressed this issue in response to the notion of popular sovereignty in the territories. He argued that if you let citizens of a new state to decide if they wanted slavery, you were essentially giving them the option of having one vote a piece or one vote plus 3/5 of however many slaves they could acquire. What would you rather have, one or more than one?
Ann Althouse said...
"What makes you think that the illegals will not lie?"
Those here illegally are (I have read) already afraid that if they are counted in the census, it could be used to hurt them, even though they are assured it will not. The added question will increase this fear of being counted — or so I presume challengers will argue.
The idea of the census should be to get the right number, and a question that will deter participation really is a concern.
I'm just saying there's a trap here: If a challenge is mounted, people will become activated about something they haven't ever thought about that might disturb them.
You've got it all right, Althouse. You are framing it rather well. The only additional question -- apart from and perhaps in distinction to the "dilution" question -- is the basic apportionment of numbers of representatives. So Democrats in Rhode Island and Michigan and a few other states, being fearful of losing congressional seats, are ginning up opposition to citizenship questions in order make the case that undocumented immigrants whose number might help them keep congressional seats and electoral votes. Which, entirely apart from vote dilution, might equate to some federal "power."
We should use this information to deport illegals. Does it "scare" them?
Good.
I hope it terrifies them the way they terrified those high school girls that they murdered and the Democrats didn't give a shit about. Two real Americans....blacks no less and members of a protected class killed by illegals and the progressives just shrug and walk away. Or publish when ICE is going to raid so rapists and pedophiles can escape like that cunt did in Oakland.
Take the gloves off. Arrest the illegals and the Democrats who enable, abuse and use them for their own courrpt political reasons.
I believe there are Congressional districts in California that have 50% illegals so the legal voters there who vote have the weight of their vote doubled. If this is true, it means the census has included illegals on its previous surveys.
My dad was not in the 1940 census. He was in a CCC camp and very few of them were counted, which was a theft of States citizens.
Didn't SCOTUS decide just a couple of years ago that including immigrants in the population count for apportionment was ok? (Sorry about no link, but my WiFi is in and mostly out just now.
Makes searching impossible by my internet age time standards. )
Because California makes voter fraud so easy, do those of us in mostly honest states have standing to challenge the results of a federal election there?
What would be the ramifications of increasing the number of Representatives to better duplicate the voter to representative ratio that obtained when the constitution was written. We'd be much more likely to know our Congressman or Congresswoman. Do you think they would be less likely to embrace the swamp? The cost of lobbying would greatly increase. Would that be a good thing? Gerrymandering would be less convoluted wouldn't it?
And would we end up with no citizens in some districts who could run for office?
Foreigners influencing our elections. Some people are opposed to that, sometimes.
Only if it is imaginary Russians.
Maybe Californians can be Spartacus and all say "no"
Answering "yes" to the question, "Are you an US citizen", on the census when you the real answer if "no" is illegal itself.
Blogger Michael K said...
“California most affected and most likely to sue.”
And, no doubt, they will find a friendly judge to issue an injunction, it will be appealed to the 9th Circuit, which will affirm, because it is the 9th Circuit, thence to the Supreme Court, that will very likely reverse. The good thing, I think about all these stupid suits by the Dems is that they are, ultimately, getting one avenue after another of sliding around the Constitution shut down by the Supreme Court.
The crisis actors from Florida want everyone to wear armbands.
I suggest that all Californians wear a taco to fool the Gestapo..
It would appeal to their sense of drama.
A better lawsuit would be to use We the People to mean that this country belongs to people and not to citizens. Judging by the inexact and generally poor locution of the Constitution, it’s an open question if the Founding Fathers considered citizens to be any different than people. And I reject the argument that slave owners wanted the 3/5 Compromise. The Anti-Federalists rejected that clause almost 100%. I believe that Madison, from the largest slave state, used the 3/5 Compromise as a carrot to get the 9th vote for ratification. It was a political ploy not the great compromise heralded by historians.
And I don’t know why no one is mentioning Texas as a state likely to lose representation.
“Can Immigration be turned over into a State subject and not Federal?
Is this Constitutionally sound?”
Probably not, but definitely not in terms of the Decennial Census, since it is what is used to allocate Representatives among the states. Cannot have one State counting illegals, and another not, when the results will be used to determine how much representation each gets. Otherwise, there would be a significant incentive to cheat. Oh, wait - that is already happening with the illegals.
”These individuals cannot vote...”
The hell they can’t.
Has it really been 40 years? My first professional programming job was for the 1980 Decennial Census. Worked on the tests, etc, which are run before every Decennial Census, and then wrote the low level code that read the results of the Census forms up to the mainframes. Left when offered a systems programming job by the Census EDP group, and had that offer retracted under pressure from out Asst. Director, who said I could take it in 1981 or 1982, when most of the Decennial work was complete. Instead, jumped to the vendor, who gave me a nice raise, and let me do systems programming Immediately, and not in 2-3 years. Still, it was a great entry level job, and I met a lot of great people there. Even after leaving Census, I stayed in the Decennial Census coffee club for another 2-3 years, and went to their softball games, until I managed to get transferred back to CO.
California has a 6% illegal population. They would lose close to 4 seats in the house and electoral college if illegals were not counted.
I've often wondered why they go to such extremes to defend illegals who commit felonies from ICE. They would have a much better argument for DACA if they said, "Yeh, we don't want felons either." It would undercut many of the augments against illegals. Instead, it helps power the opposition's arguments. Sanctuary for felons, DUI drivers, drug dealers, and abusers makes no sense. In California (where I live), an illegal will actually get a break compared to a citizen on the prosecution of what ever crime he's committed so he won't trigger ICE.
So the only logical conclusion (except for Trump/Republican Derangement Syndrome) is the they want every body to inflate their voting power. Every low illegal population state should sue for fair representation.
Seventh Circuit on non-citizens:
Neither the census nor any other policy or practice suggests that Congress wants noncitizens to participate in the electoral system as fully as the concept of virtual representation would allow, although permanent resident aliens are permitted to make federal campaign contributions, 2 U.S.C. § 441e, as are certain other nonvoters. The right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship. The dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote either directly or by the conferral of additional voting power on citizens believed to have a community of interest with the noncitizens-that being the very premise of the Latinos' claim in this litigation.
Different context (this is disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act), but the principle is the same.
I look forward to learning there are 30 million or more illegal aliens in this country. After learning that, we can have an honest discussion.
Democrats will never give up their slaves, willingly.
The Constitution is written for two parties: "the People" (i.e. native Americans at the time of its establishment) and "our Posterity" (i.e. children of "the People" - male and female citizen). It applies to other legal jurisdictions through Amendments and statutes passed by Congress.
Gerrymandering the vote through immigration reform. Other forms are of a congruent nature, where an American enjoys 3/5 of the right to vote (e.g. progressive jurisdictions that practice vote multiplicity correlated to [color] diversity). Planned Parenthood and other dysfunctional rites and practices that deny life and decimate the native population as a social progression.
Howzabout one citizen, one vote? Otherwise you might as well count buffalo out here in Comanche country.
"(i.e. children of "the People" - male and female citizen)." Are you a bigot? What about the other genders?
Where can I sign up for "Indians not taxed" status? I don't mind being excluded.
Balfegor said...
Seventh Circuit on non-citizens:
...and the census? Or voting.
If on the Census, the Constitution is strangely vague, as seems usual. Sigh.
Under "Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights", it defines a citizen as a subset of "persons", but then says:
"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." then talks about male citizens over 21, a subset of the "whole number of persons".
Re: Fernandistein --
Yes, that's why I noted that it's a different context -- it's a disparate impact case where, I guess, Latino groups were complaining that they didn't get enough safe Latino seats on the basis of their proportion of the city's population. Except that they were actually over-represented if you were looking only at citizens. And there were a bunch of other complaints.
Anyhow, not directly on point as to apportionment of representatives. Persons, though, pretty clearly includes non-citizens given its usage elsewhere in the Constitution, no? And at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, it was known that there were Chinese and other Asian aliens living in the US who were not citizens because they couldn't be naturalized (on account of not being a "free white person"), so I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that the people who drafted and adopted the amendment had the understanding that representatives could be apportioned on the basis of non-citizens resident in the US. There were quite a lot of European immigrants to the US in those days, but since those immigrants could all naturalize pretty easily, they probably did not anticipate that there would be a significant population loyal to foreign powers residing on US soil influencing US elections.
The Lawsuits start.
There are states that want the benefits that accrue when Illegal Aliens are counted. This takes away from the rights of citizens across the Country. This is something that Trump and Sessions should push back against vigorously.
If California loses a Congress person (or two) this will be "the big one."
But I know they will make sure the majority of illegal aliens commit perjury.
Fernandistein said...Where can I sign up for "Indians not taxed" status?
Crow Indian Reservation. But you will be off-grid.
"Judging by the inexact and generally poor locution of the Constitution, it’s an open question if the Founding Fathers considered citizens to be any different than people."
Utter bullshit. Who were "We the People of the United States", Barbary pirates? Plate-in-the-lip African savages? Papuan headhunters? Did any of those people ever conceive of the idea of rights, freedom, or democracy?
Benjamin Franklin petitioned Parliament for the colonists RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN, and that's what they fought for. "We the People" isn't "We Are the World".
The census has always included undocumented persons. Of course for the first 100 years of the expanding nation it was more normal for all immigrants to eventually become citizens without risk of deportation for undocumented entry.
I don't really see this as a voting issue. There is always a battle between two states as to what the correct count is for purposes of Congressional apportionment. In 2010 I recall it was between N. Carolina and Utah. Irrelevant for the rest. Do we really think the inclusion of undocumented immigrants made the difference in the counting battle between Utah and N. Carolina for that last reapportioned Congressional seat?
Etienne said...
Fernandistein said...Where can I sign up for "Indians not taxed" status?
Crow Indian Reservation. But you will be off-grid.
Until semi-recently I was across the river from the Navajo res; parts are on the grid, but there are still plenty of people 10 miles from their nearest neighbors, with solar or nothing, and a well or pickup water tanks.
They pay income taxes, though, so I don't get it. Fun fact: Average 6+ kids/woman; in the 1960s it was 9! Yet the place still seems emptily vast.
Well, back to practicing up on the difference between innumerate and enumerate.
How is this different from DACA, which took your name and address and said that the government won't come for you for a couple of years but, after that, we have your name and address? Okay, DACA just took the names and addresses of undocumented noncitizens and this doesn't ask about that. Maybe the opposition to this is because DACA is cost-efficient in that the government can exclusively target undocumented noncitizens.
Much is made of the 3/5 count for slaves in Article 1 section 2 of the constitution. What is never mention is the other part of that enumeration clause about indentured servants - which made up a large number in the North at the time.
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.
That means the whites that were indentured - bound to service - counted as wholes - not a fraction. Amazing how that bit of racism hasn't been called out - but then if it were it would blow up the whole moral argument that the North was pure.
Balfegor said...
Persons, though, pretty clearly includes non-citizens given its usage elsewhere in the Constitution, no?
Non-voters, as opposed to non-citizens, includes babies and coloreds and da wimmin-folk and such, so maybe the compromise was: non-voters get proportional representation but don't get to decide who represents them.
Leslie Graves said...
...Between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question about citizenship.
Yes! People are writing about this as if it's never been done before. Go check some of the previous census forms: all have "where born?" for each individual (and some had columns for parents' places of birth), when immigrated (if appl), citizenship questions: naturalized or alien?, can speak English? and the like. This is NOT new stuff.
I've always been intrigued by the 1870 census, where column #18 asked whether the line-itemed individual was "deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic." 'Twould be fun to include that in the next census, yah?
indentured - bound to service
It was often voluntary and when involuntary it was a different class of exploitation.
That said, the North was not pure, just a shade more functional and reconcilable, and with a momentum to conserve principles.
There needs to be a few more questions.
1. Are you an American Citizen?
2. If not, are you illegally here?
3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, then stop here and go back home.
Simple, no?
I wonder what percentage of the budget California would suddenly lose if their illegal citizens were removed from the money allocated to them?
They say it doesn't happen, but they also say illegals also do not vote but oppose ALL attempts to verify that fact. So assume they are lying because honest people would have nothing to hide.
Between the Trump Tax and losing welfare for every Juan, it is dark days for Socialist Democrat Republic of California.
Of course for the first 100 years of the expanding nation it was more normal for all immigrants to eventually become citizens without risk of deportation for undocumented entry.
And there was no welfare.
They worked or starved.
A lot of Italians, who were a late immigrant group, decided to go back to Italy during the Depression.
Xavier Becerra, the Attorney general of California, is threatening to arrest the sheriff of Orange County for posting online who is in jail for what crime so that ICE can see it. She says she would advice him not to try that.
How about the principle of one person, one person? Even after this change the person still counts, whether they check the citizen box or not.
Left Bank: "How about the principle of one person, one person?"
LOL
Well, it looks like Left Bank has gone all in on the concept that there are approximately 7.4 Billion american citizens.
Well played.
Quick question: do you still have your "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms" bumper sticker on your car?
“indentured - bound to service”
“It was often voluntary and when involuntary it was a different class of exploitation.”
Rags to riches and back to rags in three generations. Hayden ancestor, cousin of Elizebeth I through the Boylyns, apparently built the last private castle in England, before they were outlawed. Two generations later, two (or three?) of his grandsons came to this country (MA) indentured. Which is when my family first came to these shores. Not uncommon at the time - that was how you paid your passage, if you couldn’t afford it otherwise.
In the 19th century and early 20th the United States had a financial panic with attendant hard times every 15 years or so. Many Norwegian immigrants working for wages would then return home and work on the family farm until they got word that times were better again. In WWII the Germans built a large airport on Jæren from which to bomb England and of course worried about security. They found that a full 11% of the residents had spent time in America and a large fraction of those actually were American citizens, but decided it was best to ignore it and just make sure the airbase and access roads were well guarded.
Do we really think the inclusion of undocumented immigrants made the difference in the counting battle between Utah and N. Carolina for that last reapportioned Congressional seat?
The illegal immigrants in California did...without them there would be more seats for states like Utah and North Carolina.
Even after this change the person still counts, whether they check the citizen box or not.
If California shows 5 million illegals, what do you think the arguments after the next election when Kamala Harris loses the electoral college will look like ?
Not uncommon at the time - that was how you paid your passage, if you couldn’t afford it otherwise.
My uncle came indentured to a farmer even though he had done a bricklayer apprenticeship in England.
It didn't take the farmer long to figure out he was a better bricklayer than farmer and the farmer loaned him out until his indenture was expired.
This seems to have gotten very little attention, but a Yale post-doc did a study that estimates that the real number of illegals in the country is between 18 and 22 million, not the 11 million they keep saying there are. https://www.isye.gatech.edu/news-events/events/calendar/day/7740
I doubt that libs want this to be widely known. An accurate population count would harsh their narrative.
It's a funny thing....but I seem to remember the last census under the previous Democratic administration, lets see... Obama was the chap's name, I think. And there were some newly added questions perceived by many of the conservative bent to be overly nosey and busybodyish as I recall. And to the resulting hue and cry came the stern admonishments that answering all questions with full honesty to the census takers was very serious business indeed, and nothing less than full cheerful compliance was in order, on penalty of harsh fines and imprisonment, so forth. Anyone else remembering this? So how, one might ask, do all these harsh rebukes rain down upon the solid citizens while our appointed officials shower these tender mercies upon those who are here, shall we say, informally? How come? They afraid they'll do something illegal? Again??
I recall the ‘Obama’ census. Very intrusive, up until the point that you realize you are not obliged to answer almost all the questions. Read the constitution, and you will see what the government is required to do. I believe I only put down the date of birth of only the males in the house of voting age. I can’t recall the exact wording at the moment. I ignored everything else.
Dr. Althouse, I am no constitutional expert but I would think that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment compelled during the emumeration process not only the citizenship question (but also "has your right to vote been been denied or abridged by final judicial order?" "What is your age?") At least fellow citizens are relieved of stating his or her or xe sex by the 19th Amendment. Others have raised this issue indirectly. What is the literature, your position and can we expect an article in USA Today from Dr. Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit fame?
Thank your for great blog.
When I was doing my ancestry the Census was very interesting. They even asked where your parents came from, how much they made, and if they could speak English.
I noted that answers ran the gamut.
I'm sure the citizens never saw what the clerk was writing. He just interviewed them and could tell if they really spoke the language, and could tell what country they came from.
How much they made was very interesting. Almost shocking, but then you have to realize a dollar was a real dollar back before the Banking Act.
Post a Comment