Among the vast array of things that evoke knee-jerk antagonism these days, few seem to be more curiously volatile than issues relating to undocumented immigrants. I say “curious” because few cared a whit about them until Trump became president, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of deportations under Obama because, well, who cared?
So when it was announced that there might be a question on the 2020 decennial census, as required by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, cries of outrage rang out. It’s not that the question of immigrant status hasn’t appeared on the census in the past in various forms. It has, and without controversy. But this time is different, as the tenor of the issue has changed substantially.
Much as the Trump administration, by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, has tried to provide benign reasons for asking about citizenship, people aren’t buying. How could they, after Trump ran on vilifying “illegals”? The contention that this won’t impact people’s willingness to respond to the census questionnaire seems ludicrous.
Whether rightly or wrongly, there is massive concern, if not outright fear, that the nice folks from ICE will take away grandma and lock the children up in kiddie prison. That the census must, by law, be kept confidential is of little comfort. There is no trust in this government, with good reason.
But there is a problem with the sudden feelings of concern for the undocumented, which may well be horribly wrong in the eyes of their newfound friends and supporters, but is a reality nonetheless. There are many Americans who are unsympathetic to their plight. While they may not be criminals, they also aren’t here lawfully. We can’t be a nation of laws only when it suits us.
Beyond the group of people who hate “illegals,” there are a great many Americans who aren’t antagonistic toward them, but aren’t prepared to ignore their unlawful status and pretend it’s not an issue. They are concerned that counting “people,” as the Constitution says must be counted, to divvy congressional representation and resources, shouldn’t be skewed by people whom the law says should not be here. Why should citizens lose clout in Congress because people who are here unlawfully are counted?
There are a number of analogies raised by those who decry the question of citizenship on the census. Women were counted before they could vote. People in prison are not only counted despite their disenfranchisement, but counted in the district where they’re held against their will rather than where they would choose to reside. And for those unfamiliar with United States history, the grand-daddy of retorts, the Three-Fifths Compromise. So if we’ve always counted people despite denying them the right to vote, why then distinguish people who are here without documentation?
The analogies fail to address the question. All are outliers anticipated by the Constitution based upon the norms of the age. Nor is it as simple as the Constitution says “people” rather than “citizens,” as it merely asks a question of status. The census questionnaire doesn’t whisk anyone away.
If the primary purpose of the census is to distribute representation in Congress, the inclusion of people who are not here lawfully, who should not be here even if you don’t see a problem with them, is an issue. They can’t vote. They’re here unlawfully. They will skew representation in their favor at the expense of American citizens. Denying the concern doesn’t win an argument. Telling those who have no animus, but are concerned about undocumented immigrants that they’re evil and wrong is what drives people away, not that the deeply passionate don’t feel smug about screaming at the deplorables.
The constitutional mandate, however, may provide an answer where the competing values do not.
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.
One of the core themes of our founding was taxation, a rallying cry being “no taxation without representation.” It appears again in Article I, Section 2, notably with “excluding Indians not taxed.” The question of whether a human being is lawfully present in the United States, which isn’t a status based upon their engaging in any active wrongdoing*, but upon permission to be present that can, and has, changed with some regularity. In other words, today’s “illegal” is on tomorrow’s path to citizenship. The person didn’t change. The law providing for their status did, and does all the time.
Yet, undocumented immigrants are taxed. They pay sales taxes when they buy things, just like everyone else. They pay income tax when they work, kinda like everyone else except they don’t get a refund for overpayment. They pay the price of being present in the United States without the full panoply of benefits. You may well say, “but they’re illegal, so they don’t deserve them,” but we still take their money. And like it or not, they pay more than they receive back in benefits. There is free-riding, but it’s citizens getting the benefit.
Given the pervasive fear among immigrant populations following their vilification by Darth Cheeto, the administration’s contention that including a citizenship question on the census won’t clearly produce an undercount is nonsensical. But even if you refuse to believe it, or feel that it’s a problem, there is another path by which to understand why this question, at this time, is needlessly misguided and counterproductive.
Sure, the census has, in the past, included a citizenship question. It’s also not included the question. One way gives rise to the significant likelihood of undercounting those people who are paying taxes for your benefit. The other way didn’t destroy the Union. It may be that we should use the census to get a better statistical grasp of who’s here, but not in the 2020 census. Fear and loathing are too prevalent to ignore, and the constitutional mandate to count all the people matters more than whatever antagonism people have toward undocumented immigrants.
As long as America is enjoying the benefit of undocumented immigrants’ taxes, not to mention contributions of labor, culture, sacrifice in battle and vitality**, driving them underground runs afoul of the purpose of the census and is counterproductive. And at least for now, we’ve turned this into a needless tribal war. We would do well with one less thing to hate about. We’ve already got enough.
*It may be that an undocumented immigrant violated a criminal law, whether in the manner of entering or in conduct while in the United States, but merely being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime. It may not be a lawful status, but it is not a criminal status.
**Yes, some undocumented immigrants commit crimes. So do some American citizens. To taint all for some makes no greater sense for undocumented immigrants than anyone else. People are people, no matter what the immigration quota from Norway may be.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, for one of the two “parties,” having allocation of political power skewed by people who shouldn’t be here is why they want those people to be here.
Obviously they’re politically motivated. But that doesn’t mean we can’t think more clearly, even though trying to find a principled solution will end up benefiting one side or the other.
Given that their motivation is political, then all’s fair. One side has no interest in singing Kumbaya with the other. So why should one side be asked to figuratively bend over and say “Thank you, sir. May I have another”?
Personally, I hold no animus toward anyone who is an immigrant. I’ve been married to two in my life. But I have no compunction in preferring those who come here through legal processes instead of those who illegally cut in the immigration lunch line and then scream about unfairness.
I think there are many people, like you, who are troubled by people who “cut the line” even though they have no animus toward immigrants. There’s a need to arrive at a rational way to resolve the conflict that’s not as cynical as “might makes right.” If the middle of America, which is largely caught in between the parties, takes the view that there is a legitimate way to resolve this question, then the party seeking to game the census will have to suffer public disdain for its abusing the system.
It may not be much, but it’s all we’ve got.
Or both or neither (depending upon the principle). The reality is the other “party” wants the people who shouldn’t be here to be here for purposes of cheap labor. Neither “party” has much incentive to repair the system (which explains why they haven’t).
The question isn’t about undocumented non-citizens, it is about all kinds of non-citizens. If what NPR told me is correct, California argues in its suit that the question is unconstitutional because its documented immigrants will be undercounted and thus California will lose benefits.
Nevertheless, the politics are the same. Considering Trump’s et al. actions, one might come to the conclusion that they have ill will towards all immigrants and only add the word “undocumented” out front because it is politically more palatable (i.e., they may get a few votes from those who don’t have ill will towards legal immigrants; the nativists’ votes are a lock anyway).
The distinction between undercounting undocumented immigrants and documented non-citizens is a different problem. If they’re here lawfully, even if not citizens, they have no excuse not to respond to the census questions. What to do about the citizen/non-citizen distinction isn’t a census issue, but a political issue upon aggregating the response to the census. Once we know who’s here, there could be another fight over what to do about them. The census question, however, deals only with the first part, figuring out how many people are here, regardless of their status.
What to do about “them”… really?
Interesting.
Speaking of which, “The nation’s capital accounts for just one-fifth of 1 percent of the U.S. population but one in every 25 of its lawyers.”
Will 1 in 20 make the difference?
Bwahahahahaha…..
I think you are quoting an outdated constitutional mandate. The 14th amendment, section 2, amended the apportionment formula:
“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.”
It’s the amendment that defines citizenship, and section 2 itself distinguishes “Persons” and citizens wrt voting rights.
You’re correct, but the 14th A doesn’t mention the census mandate.
When folks argue against knowledge my hackles go up.
There are a variety of perspectives on “what to do regarding illegal immigrants,” ranging from amnesty to expulsion. But any cogent discussion has to begin with a factual understanding of how many are here, and where they are.
The fact that people want this information not to be know at all is distressing.
A counter argument here would be that those unlawful immigrants aren’t taxed – at least no in the same way, and sometimes even not at all.
Two considerations:
(1) this is a federal document, and so should concern itself only with federal taxation – not state level taxation, such as sales taxes. Unlawful immigrants, of whatever stripe, don’t pay federal taxes – at least not as themselves; they may pay using someone else’s social security number, but that sort of counts as the other person paying.
(2) in states without sales tax, there is not even a state tax that is really being paid by those in question.
It seems at least as likely an argument could be made that the unlawful immigrants be considered indians under the constitution’s census provision.
If they work, income taxes are deducted, even if it’s under a fake social security number. The money gets taken from them either way. They pay taxes.
Except those that work for cash.
But then, any ‘evidence’ of that is going to be anecdotal.
There will certainly be some/many, but also true of citizens, and immigrants are still putting more into the coffers than they take out.
Do I get to claim you’re begging the question with your opening paragraph?
I know it doesn’t further the conversation but it does need calling out as it’s the premise of your entire post.
People didn’t express outrage at the deportation of the hundreds of thousands at the hands of BHO’s DoJ due to a presumption of due process (yes, yes, I know…we all believe in some fantasies as adults, right?). Whereas the current admin has presented a clearly reduced presumption of adhering to that via the mouth of PoTUS himself.
At risk of tangentiation, drone strikes on foreign civilians are a similar cause célèbre where 45 appears to be receiving a stronger repudiation than BHO did for his actions.
No.
No means Yes, on this blawg site,… if that’s what you want to call it? You know,… rape culture is epidemic/endemic in these hear parts.
“At the risk of tangentiation….” is the part we like. Go Sox, go! Ruth Bader is a baseball fan, we hear?
I thought of you when I read “tangentiation.” Amazing what bring you to mind, Bill.