Waking Up To the Coming Battle Over the Census

Last night's reports of the murder of a US Census worker will bring national attention to the emerging politics of the Census count, something that we've long been worried about at NDN.

In August I posted the following about a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed which signaled the beginning of a new campaign by the right to disrupt the vital Census count next year:

For many months now NDN has been making the case that inevitably the right would make a spirited case to prevent the Census, to be conducted next year, from counting undocumented immigrants, or at least using their numbers to influence reapportionment or the allocation of resources by the government (the primary purpose of the every ten year count).

Today the Wall Street Journal is running a well-articulated early salvo in this coming battle by John S. Baker and Elliot Stonecipher. It starts off:

"Next year's census will determine the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. To accomplish these vital constitutional purposes, the enumeration should count only citizens and persons who are legal, permanent residents. But it won't.

Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country--including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of "loser" states should be outraged. Yet few are even aware of what's going on.

In 1790, the first Census Act provided that the enumeration of that year would count "inhabitants" and "distinguish" various subgroups by age, sex, status as free persons, etc. Inhabitant was a term with a well-defined meaning that encompassed, as the Oxford English Dictionary expressed it, one who "is a bona fide member of a State, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer."

Thus early census questionnaires generally asked a question that got at the issue of citizenship or permanent resident status, e.g., "what state or foreign country were you born in?" or whether an individual who said he was foreign-born was naturalized. Over the years, however, Congress and the Census Bureau have added inquiries that have little or nothing to do with census's constitutional purpose.

By 1980 there were two census forms. The shorter form went to every person physically present in the country and was used to establish congressional apportionment. It had no question pertaining to an individual's citizenship or legal status as a resident. The longer form gathered various kinds of socioeconomic information including citizenship status, but it went only to a sample of U.S. households. That pattern was repeated for the 1990 and 2000 censuses.

The 2010 census will use only the short form. The long form has been replaced by the Census Bureau's ongoing American Community Survey. Dr. Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau's Immigration Statistics Staff, told us in a recent interview that the 2010 census short form does not ask about citizenship because "Congress has not asked us to do that."

Because the census (since at least 1980) has not distinguished citizens and permanent, legal residents from individuals here illegally, the basis for apportionment of House seats has been skewed. According to the Census Bureau's latest American Community Survey data (2007), states with a significant net gain in population by inclusion of noncitizens include Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Texas. (There are tiny net gains for Hawaii and Massachusetts.)

This makes a real difference. Here's why:

According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat). Using a similar projection, Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included. With only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members."

You get the idea.

We've been arguing, aggressively, that it is important for the Obama Administration to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform by March of 2010 (the count begins in April, 2010) in order to avoid what could become a very nasty debate indeed - in the middle of a very important election - about who exactly is an American. To me the need to conduct a clean and accurate census, so essential to effective governance of the nation, is one of the most powerful reasons why immigration reform cannot wait till 2011, as some have suggested.

In launching DropDobbs.com along with 14 other groups this past week, I cited my own personal weariness with the summer's angry talk and the still all too virulent politics of intolerance. We have long believed the debate over the Census would unleash the reactionary hounds, so to speak, and rather than letting them gain the upper hand in a debate over who we are and who we are becoming, it is essential now for reasonable people of both parties to stand, together, to prevent an angry few from hijacking what is, in this case, a process so integral to the very functioning of our democracy.

Next year is shaping up to be an extraordinary one in US history.

Cross-posted at the NDN blog.

Follow Simon Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonwdc

Comments

[Pulladigm]

It really doesn't matter if the count of citizens/i­nhabitants is accurate. less than half of them are going to vote anyway. If they don't care about their representation why should we?
~;^}>

[wildedge]

This is only half the story, although it is the half most people will be debating in public about.
The other half is the narrative we've been only arguing indirectly; yet it is at the heart of rightwing fears, even concerning immigrants.
The Census is likely to show that those of Northern European descent are now in a minority. Their 200-year claim to privilege due to majority-s­tatus-by-b­irth comes to an end.
Eventually, supoposing an optimal future history for the US, America will end up with at least two legal languages; the border with Mexico will become as open as that with Canada; employees will be allowed paid holidays days for 'holy days' of four religions; the 'ethnic neighborhood' phenomenon will return in ways as yet undreamed - perhaps whole cities will redevelop as ethnic enclaves; there will be greater regional economic innovations; and the interplay of cultures in our education, especially the humanities, will make what we consider 'multi-culturalism' look like a stuffy provincialism. There will be such wide-spread intermarriage that the easy categories of racial identity we use - like saying of Obama that he's "half-black, half-white,' which, biologically speaking, is complete nonsense - will simply disappear.
That's the optimuim. But if we tack right politically, what we will leave to our descendents is a history of military dictatorships, economic collapse, civil wars, plagues, famines, and an eventual sectioning off of the nation by a world government fearful of the damage are doing.

[UKOH]

There is no point in asking about citizenship or residency status - illegal immigrants will just lie anyway. If you require immigration documentation to be produced at the time of the census then the fears of "government intrusion" will become all the more real and totally destroy it.

I'm a British legal resident of the USA. I have lived in 5 countries outside of the USA, all of whom, like the US, have a census every 10 years. Outside of the USA nobody bats an eyelid and just fills out the form as part of a completely non controversial and totally non news worthy event.

[psomerset]

If the Census form does, in fact, not ask for information regarding citizenship, then I believe that the form should be changed to request this information. Voting representation should be based on the number of citizens, not simply the number of inhabitants. The total number of inhabitants is useful in the allocation of resources with respect to healthcare, police and fire protection, etc.

The Founding Fathers, as remarkable as their achievements are, were men (almost exclusively) who were no smarter than we (i.e., our best) are, and could only produce a document that spoke to the economic and political conditions that existed at the time.

[Ponytale]

I hope people will take a minute and go look at an old census form. Geneologists rely upon them and they don't get published for 70 years after they are made. The old forms asked for the residents names, all of the children, dates of birth, where everybody was born, if they were naturalized or freemen (in the pre civil war censuses) They are a great source of information about WHO is here, legal or otherwise and where you are at the time of the census (even if you are in jail somewhere else). It is a snapshot of life at that particular time and so important for future generations. It is not some government plot to spy on Americans but an important, time honored, historical ritual we go through every ten years. Please cooperate with the census taker - it is so hard to "FiX" bad information!

[rkimball]

he was at the wrong place & the wrong time. outsiders don't just go into these areas around these kind of people. many have disappeared for not heeding the warnings. harlan & hazzard have always been off limits to outsiders.

[LeonBNJ]

The survey work the murdered worker was doing was because people would not fill out the 'long form' and the need of critical demographic information needed for government programs as well and very much wanted for corporate interests. Corporations use the extended demographic information to make decisions as to where to locate stores, advertising and marketing plans and so on. Perhaps we should charge those corporations instead of giving the info for free to cover it's real costs instead of sticking it to taxpayers.

One other serious distortion of the Census is how 'residency' location also includes where a person is in jail, not the city or neighborhood they are form. In some states like NY City, that means 1000's of Black persons from NY City are not counted as residents of NY City, but as residents of upstate communities, sometimes 300 miles away. Those rural and mainly Republican districts gain more benefits from the census over mainly Democratic and heavily non-white urban areas further skewing govenment benefits to residents.

[mrfreeze]

We go through this same exercise every 10 years regarding the census.......It's always the same:

1) The census won't count the "right" kind of people
2) The census will ask too much information, thus feeding information into some sort of Orwellian data base
3) The census will "skew" redistricting in favor of "liberals"
4) The census will do this, the census will do that.....blah, blah, blah

It's always the same old hand wringing by the same ignorant people. I have never met anyone who can prove.. and come to think of it.....I can't recall any journalist or researcher who has proven that the census has harmed anyone, or exposed anyone to "the government" or any other negative result. For the most part, census figures are well-respected and used by all sorts of organizations, public and private.

It's amazing to me that the census is so threatening to people. It's just another reason to complain about "the government."

[thomas1764]

The referenced op-ed in the WSJ claimed:

"Thus early census questionnaires generally asked a question that got at the issue of citizenship or permanent resident status, e.g., 'what state or foreign country were you born in?'"

This is not a factual statement. The first census was in 1790. Not until 1850 did the census enumerators begin asking about place of birth. And not until 1880 did they ask where one's parents were born. Genealogists and family historians, of course, would love it if the early census questionnaires had actually asked these questions because it would help all of us in our family detective work.

[Jazzbeau]

Yes, I see a storm coming and, as a temporary census worker, I have to admit to feeling a bit of trepidation.

Are we, who are only trying to scrape together a few extra bucks to supplement our meager retirement income or dwindling savings, going to be scapegoated or even attacked by these anti government wackos? I wonder if they will be showing up at census offices with their guns as they did at the 'tea parties.'

Think about it. That may not be as far fetched as it seems at first blush. It would certainly not be untypical of their behavior since President Obama took office. If they are allowed to intimidate or deter census workers we all lose.

[TXfemmom]

Illegal aliens are not about to fill out a census form or even answer questions for someone who comes to their door. I rather doubt that they would hang a poor census taker, however, it would require a red state redneck to do that.

[lynettema]

I doubt the illegal would even answer the door.

[TXfemmom]

Heh, if the right doesn't like the census, and doesn't want to cooperate with it, then don't count them. Don't count the people in Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, TX, SC, NC, TN, Arkansas, Bachman's district, etc. They don't like the Federal Government and don't want them telling them what to do, then DON'T MAKE AN EFFORT TO COUNT them, and then they can stop MOOCHING off the Federal government.

[krechsd]

As you recall, that was the brilliant advice Michelle Bachman gave her constituients.

[Hempy]

The issue of who is to be counted in a census was answered in Federalist Paper 54, by Alexander Hamilton and/or James Madison. It is written:

"It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation."

So, regardless of one's status, citizen, illegal, slave or free, their numbers count for representation. Thus it is important that all persons be counted to properly apportion the House of Representatives. If that gives California, Texas, Arizona and any other state with large immigrant populations more representatives in the Congress, then so be it. It's in keeping with the intent of our founders.

An immigration reform bill is obviously needed, but it isn't necessary for the census to count all persons.

[krechsd]

Nice post.

[jotunloki]

Slaves by law were only counted as two thirds of a person.

[Hempy]

US Constitution, Article I, Section 1, clause 3 reads:

"3. 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 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."

The point Alexander Hamilton and/or James Madison were making was that all persons should be counted as a person, and not some fraction thereof.

I mentioned slaves because there are sex slaves in the U.S. They too should be counted. Finding and counting them is likely to be more difficult.

[Mary Absher]

The safety of census workers is what needs to be considered. Who and why are the questions that need to answered. Does anyone know what dangers could be in that part of Kentucky?

[TXfemmom]

Well, let's see. That county is a mean, anti-black, pot growing, methamphetamine growing, rural, government-hating territory. That gives one a phletora of reasons why someone could be angered by someone from the government knocking on their door. Since the county has demonstrated that census takers are not safe there, JUST DON'T COUNT THEM. That means that they won't get a Representative in Congress, won't get as much in food stamps, Medicaid, and other moocher state stuff, which they use in abundance in that county.

[lynettema]

There you go! Sounds like a plan to me.

[fourbrrl]

sounds like you live there !

[texastrixie]

What is wrong with you people. This is the perfect solution. Where is there the most vicious outrage at the census? The Red States. Please, let them all boycott the census. They should be patriotic enough to even refuse to fill out the short form! You don't want Obama knowing where you are, do you?

Result? The Blue states, who are not arfraid of the government, the census, or immigration, will do well in the census. They can make an effort to count every breathing person within their state borders, and hope that the red states refuse to participate as much as possible.

[SteveDenver]

I was thinking the same. Let the "danger zones" stand at the present count.

[seaward]

Let the "danger zones" go to zero unless they participate. That way everyone is happy.

[TXfemmom]

The red states want to boycott the census, YES. Send out the forms and count the ones that come back but since they have a history of anti-government rhetoric and their representatives have been spouting off and encouraging a stance which would endanger the census takers, then don't count them. Sounds fine to me.

[krechsd]

I like it. We need to keep Bachman etc. telling their followers to boycott the census.

[eyepatch]

The US Census data is used for more
than to make sure that there is proper
representation of the citizens of the
country! and once every 10 years the "right wing"
always makes a political football out of it!

Like in the 1990 Census the issue of
"homeless" people was the football
the "right wing" wanted to kick around then!
Their agrument then was how can you
count people who do not have a home???
So there was a serious under count of the
actual number of homeless people in the United States!

I guess if you are on the political "right" you are
happy with incomplete statistics as long as it serves
their purposes, meanwhile Census figures are
only a guess-timate of the true poplation of the country
and not a true accounting of the people residing in it!

[SteveDenver]

They are the most suspicious of others, because they're projecting.

[oldpol2]

absolutely!