On April 1, President Donald Trump publicly stated on Twitter that a United States Census without a citizenship question would be “a waste,” questioning the judgment of the Democratic Party’s stance.
If passed by the Supreme Court, the citizenship question would be the first of its kind since 1950 — when the Census was still done by enumerators that went from household to household. This question plans to ask census-takers whether or not they are citizens of the U.S. However, the Trump administration finds itself in a deadlock with many cities, states, and immigrant rights groups that question the constitutionality of the citizenship question. By June, the Supreme Court is set to make its decision about the 2020 Census.
While many conservatives seem to be in firm approval of the citizenship question, the question could have extreme political ramifications. Like it or not, it is no longer 1950 — times have changed, and the population makeup of the United States is vastly different from what it once was 70 years ago. According to Pew Research Center, as of 2017, around eleven million undocumented immigrants now call the U.S. home. Not acknowledging this figure can damage both the integrity and the constitutionality of the Census. Immigrant communities, especially households with non-citizens, will be less willing to participate in a census with the question, which will undoubtedly cause undercounting. This is a crucial problem, as the Census is vital to the political landscape of the U.S. Population counts from the Census are used to determine the number of congressional seats and Electoral college votes a state receives. They also serve as a guide to the distribution of federal tax dollars to states and local communities for public services. As a result of undercounting, federal funding and the political landscape would be altered dramatically.
While the Census Bureau has stated that it is legally bound by the “72-year Rule” from disclosing the identities of those that participated in the Census until 72 years later, it is clear that many undocumented immigrants will avoid participation in the Census due to the citizenship question. During a test run of citizenship questions from February through September of 2017, survey-takers reportedly gave erroneous or incomplete information and were visibly distraught. In one census taker’s account, when the citizenship question was asked, one man got up and left her alone in his apartment.
In 1980, the Census Bureau’s official stance on citizenship questions was that such questions were touchy in immigrant communities and could stifle census participation. Why add such a question now? The number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has increased since 1980. California has already sued Trump over the citizenship question on the 2020 Census, and New York’s state general attorney has also vocalized plans about a multi-state lawsuit. States with large populations of undocumented immigrants will be extremely at risk if the question is allowed to be on the Census, which is why many are now retaliating against the Trump administration. The cornerstone of California’s lawsuit was that the question would cause inaccurate population counts and thus would violate the constitutional purpose of the Census. Furthermore, because of undocumented immigrants’ probable avoidance of the population count in the Census, health and social science research would be compromised.
The citizenship question is outdated. There is a reason it was removed from the Census after 1950. It is an inefficient use of resources; the Census Bureau already collects data about citizenship through the American Community Survey. This question, if included, would jeopardize the purpose of the Census, and would cause many states to lose millions of dollars in federal funding and political power. As Judge Richard Seeborg wrote after he ruled that the question was pointless and arbitrary, “The inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 Census threatens the very foundation of our democratic system — and does so based on a self-defeating rationale.”
