Back in 2019, President Trump attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 United States Census, this effort was blocked by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote citing "that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross apparently 'contrived' a phony rationale for adding the question, violating federal law that requires transparency and reasoned decisions in policy-making," according to the Wall Street Journal.
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Still, this block did not stop the Trump Administration from attempting to find other work-arounds to exclude "illegal aliens" from the House of Representatives apportionment part of the census, a key interest to the Republican party and Trump's administration. Should the SCOTUS rule in President Trump's favor, the census for reapportionment "would likely shift representation from urban areas and Democratic-trending states toward more rural and Republican-leaning states with smaller immigrant populations" (WSJ). This change in census reporting would create a lasting impact for at least a decade, when the next U.S. census is set to be completed.
Additionally, to only count legal citizens in the census would change the 200-year plus precedent where U.S. residents included "both citizens and noncitizens, regardless of immigration status" (NPR) since the first census in 1790. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall has used the term U.S. residents/ inhabitants to further his argument, supporting Trump's push to focus on citizenship, arguing "the term ‘inhabitants’ does not completely bar the President from exercising discretion to exclude illegal aliens” (WSJ).
Solicitor General Wall's point speaks to a much larger debate, how much power should be left up to the President's "discretion;" should the President have a say in the census is another question that ought to be discussed. After all, the U.S. Census Bureau is under the U.S. Department of Commerce, where its' director is appointed by the President, so maybe the census can be more partisan than many want to believe.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments for Trump v. New York next month, this case could possibly include federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as Republicans hope to confirm her as the ninth justice before the November 3rd election, thus "cementing a conservative majority" (Politico) on the Court. Having a conservative majority would most likely impact the ruling of the court on this immigration-centered issue.
5 comments:
The 2020 census seems to be filled with aLL sorts of controversy as trump ended it early. It surprising me that citizenship was not originally on the census to begin with. Weird, I guess you just do not think about that or it seems obvious.I don't think that people should be exclude from the census if they are not citizens. The census is design to understand the US population not just citizens. Illegal immigrants are just as much part of the population as citizens. If citizenship is placed on the census, it should not limit those who can fill it out.
I think this change towards census policy could potentially have many implications for citizens. The census is an important measurement of a population's distribution in a specific region. Being undercounted will be costly for minority groups and immigrants, as funding from the government is determined by their census totals. Food, health, education, and infrastructure funding could be potentially decreased if this change is enacted, putting these groups into a jeopardized position. Individuals who are not citizens have a right to be accounted for, as they are a part of communities and should not be ignored. American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Dale Ho asserted that President Trump is attempting to "weaponize the census for his attacks on immigrant communities." In this case, I would agree, as I see only glaring issues presented by this decision.
I didn't know that Trump tried to sneak a question about citizenship into the 2020 census back in 2019, though I was aware of his other actions toward the census. This just seems to be another example of Trump trying to meddle with it for his own gain, like the shortening of the census timeline earlier this year. Looking at it from an outside perspective, I think putting a citizenship question on the census makes sense, but only for record keeping purposes. It shouldn't affect anything like the House of Representatives apportionment or funding from the government for minority groups.
Citizenship shouldn’t be something that is needed to be included in the Census. The census is supposed to take a measurement of different things of the whole population of the US to see how it differs in different areas. Choosing to exclude people just because they aren’t citizens is discriminatory, as many minorities make up this demographic and would put them in harm. Federal funding, grants, and support to states are based on the census which breaks down the population for them with factors such as age, race, sex, and many others. THe consens benefits your community the most when it counts for everyone and allows for your community and yourself to get a fair share of federal funds for your basic rights.
It is strange that citizenship is not included in the original census since I believe subjects that incorporate basic human rights should at least be noted in a relatively recent census. It is obviously unfair and discriminatory for people to be excluded from the census just because they are not a citizen as minority groups and undocumented citizens create the majority of the community and it is best if the subject of citizenship is added the others shall not be excluded from the census in order to maintain fairness.
Post a Comment