Summary:
Many people have reacted to Trump’s proposal to include a citizenship question in 2020 Census. The
appearance of this question is likely to reduce immigrant participation in the census. A lack of
immigrant participation may cause a racial inequality that is plainly unconstitutional, as the inequality
limits minority representation. The Census Bureau claims that they are working on a digital approach to
the Census; another factor that may limit minority participation due to a possible lack of access to the internet.
appearance of this question is likely to reduce immigrant participation in the census. A lack of
immigrant participation may cause a racial inequality that is plainly unconstitutional, as the inequality
limits minority representation. The Census Bureau claims that they are working on a digital approach to
the Census; another factor that may limit minority participation due to a possible lack of access to the internet.
Analysis:
I think this somewhat relates to the idea of gerrymandering. This issue with the census is not as obvious
as gerrymandering, but I think it can have a similar effect if policymakers are deliberate enough. It is
also stated that individuals will be asked about their relationship status in terms of same-sex marriage/relationship
or not (see the NPR article linked below). I do not think asking citizenship or relationship status is relevant
to the purpose of the census. A quick Google search directed me to its purpose: “...accurately apportioning
congressional districts, the federal government uses census data... to determine: the allocation of federal
funding for education programs in states and communities” (This Nation).
By placing the question of citizenship on the census paired with a push towards digitization and relationship
status, I think there is an underlying motive to limit and suppress minorities’ votes, as there will be less representation
and, thus, less federal funds flowing into the heavily minority-populated areas.
as gerrymandering, but I think it can have a similar effect if policymakers are deliberate enough. It is
also stated that individuals will be asked about their relationship status in terms of same-sex marriage/relationship
or not (see the NPR article linked below). I do not think asking citizenship or relationship status is relevant
to the purpose of the census. A quick Google search directed me to its purpose: “...accurately apportioning
congressional districts, the federal government uses census data... to determine: the allocation of federal
funding for education programs in states and communities” (This Nation).
By placing the question of citizenship on the census paired with a push towards digitization and relationship
status, I think there is an underlying motive to limit and suppress minorities’ votes, as there will be less representation
and, thus, less federal funds flowing into the heavily minority-populated areas.
Questions:
1) Do you agree or disagree with Donald Trump’s addition of the citizenship question onto the census? Why or why not?
2) What do you think are Trump’s motives in the addition of the question?
3) Do you think demographic information such as citizenship status and even sexuality is relevant to the census?
Why or why not?
1) Do you agree or disagree with Donald Trump’s addition of the citizenship question onto the census? Why or why not?
2) What do you think are Trump’s motives in the addition of the question?
3) Do you think demographic information such as citizenship status and even sexuality is relevant to the census?
Why or why not?
Sources:
4 comments:
As long as someone is eligible to vote, they should be able to vote and have the right not to give any additional information such as citizenship status or sexuality. I think there is a clear angle that Trump is taking by incorporating the question of citizenship into the vote. It opens up the potential to draw up districts that give minorities less representation, add to that the access to digital voting- clearly targeting those who can't afford such methods of voting. Minorities such as Hispanics and African Americans tend to vote Democratic, so something like this clearly serves to benefit Trump.
It's my understanding from personal experience of registering to vote, as well just by a brief google search, that citizenship status is one of the primary criteria to vote. To say that a citizenship question, then, it totally away from the norms and creates a "racially biased census" is largely unsubstantiated, and is quick to attribute malicious intent. The Washington Post article cited goes as far as to liken this to the "three-fifths clause", which I believe is a big reach, and generally disingenuous to those who endured that horribly racist legislation. The NPR article that was sourced has very interesting analysis of the citizenship question, and how it may lead to better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act; I tend to agree, but would also argue that private polling data should not be discounted.
It's also my understanding based on largely available polling data that most African Americans, who have been argued to be heavily impacted by this requirement, have their full citizenship and thus would not be strongly affected by this.
Hispanics immigrants would indeed be affected, and obviously the implied fear of some is that this would expose illegal immigrants. I don't particularly have a strong view on this, and I can see why illegal immigrants in particular shying away from the census is a major problem, particularly those living in non "sanctuary" areas. Gathering data on undocumented persons has been a notoriously difficult task, and our most accurate data is probably not going to come from a government census, but rather private polls. The LA Times has a great opinion article that details the issue with attempting to quantify undocumented persons for the purpose of informing state and federal legislatures, essentially arguing that a complete count will never be reached, as including the question leads to less participation, but excluding the question leads to no data at all.
I also agree with both Alaina and Connor that the "digital-first" idea is perhaps too optimistic and doesn't consider the implications. To begin with, I think "digital-first" has a major branding problem, and if it were instead reworked to be a "digital option", it would be seen as a more inclusive force. More to the point, if our country is really moving in the direction of digital voting entirely, we are discounting the 11% of Americans who don't use the internet in any capacity, a plurality of which are elderly individuals. I definitely think that digital voting could be used to census outreach, but it shouldn't come at the cost of abolishing in print census methods.
Austin, I agree that the three-fifths claim is a reach because the census does not have to do with limiting voting, but the possibly negative effects of the citizenship question. That's why I did not mention that part of the article. I took mainly from the summary portion of the Washington Post's article, as well as referenced other sources (that are also cited... the ones you obviously went out of your way to read). All I'm saying is that immigrants, especially ones whose citizenship has not been granted yet, will be less inclined to fill out the census questionnaire with the inclusion of the question, which will yield inaccurate census results. I didn't say anything about voting, just about the census.
Post a Comment