A similar phenomenon concerns the Trump administration’s desire to inquire of the citizenship of respondents to the 2020 US Census. Well, not citizenship per se, but specifically, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” That question, or a variant, was asked in almost every census from 1850 to 1950 (including those years when millions of LEGAL immigrants passed through Ellis Island and other places). In 1850 and 1860 respondents were asked to give their place of birth. In 1870 a citizenship question was asked, evidently for the purpose of learning if emancipated slaves were being given the rights due to them. Starting in 1900, the form asked if the respondent was a native-born citizen, a naturalized citizen, or a non-citizen. This continued through 1950. The form had grown to be quite long and intrusive, so at the next census, 1960, that question was dropped, along with many others, in order to make the form easier to use, fill out, and record. As our population expanded and the government’s thirst for information grew, the form was divided into long and short versions. The short version, which did not include a citizenship question, went to about 80% of the population. The long form, which went to about 20%, did ask the citizenship question.
The progressive left went so ballistic over the possibility that the citizenship question might be asked on the short form that one would have thought the census was asking “are you now or have you ever been a Communist?” or some other provocative inquiry. Lawsuits, publicity campaigns, and other means have been used to try to prevent the question from being asked in 2020.
It certainly is in the government’s interest to know the information sought through a census, and the number of non-citizens definitely is something that should be known.
Is the question “constitutional”? Now, the only thing that a court should determine when asked about a census question is, “Does the government have the power to ask this question?” Whether or not that question or any other may be counterproductive, or lead to fewer responses, or be foolish, or be too expensive, is a legitimate point to raise, but should have no bearing on the “constitutionality” of the citizenship question.
The decisions of some federal courts to the contrary, it seems clear that the government has the right to inquire about citizenship. It has been asking it in the annual form, and has asked it in most censuses since 1860. The United Nations (hardly a den of Trump-lovers) recommends that national censuses ask about citizenship. The Obama administration asked about citizenship in its annual census surveys. The Democrats in Congress are taking the position that asking the question is “deeply troubling” because the citizenship information might be used “to target” non-citizens; and furthermore, because the census is used to allocate federal tax dollars, those states with (presumably) large populations of illegal immigrants “fear” a reduction in funding if those persons are not counted, and if the non-citizens are afraid to cooperate with the census, that money would be diminished. It is conceivable that those things could happen, although it strikes us that a population of illegals who are, for instance, reluctant because of their illegal status to call the police when a crime is committed, are probably even less likely to fill out a government form regardless a census question is present or not. It sure is legitimate to raise the issue of participation, and it may be that the inclusion of a citizenship question may make illegals less likely to comply. But that does not make it illegal or unconstitutional to ask the question.
The Democrats and the progressive left also don’t want voters to be required to present identification at election time, so it comes as no surprise that they don’t want to ask about the citizenship status of illegal immigrants, but unless Congress votes to exclude such a question (as it has done with religious affiliation questions), then the question is legal and proper, and should be asked. -- by John Shaffer