{"id":23313,"date":"2020-08-03T16:49:05","date_gmt":"2020-08-03T20:49:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=23313"},"modified":"2020-08-03T16:49:07","modified_gmt":"2020-08-03T20:49:07","slug":"2020-census-count-illegal-aliens-who-is-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/08\/03\/2020-census-count-illegal-aliens-who-is-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Census Needs 20\/20 Vision on Illegal Aliens"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

President Donald Trump has directed that the 2020 Census exclude illegal aliens<\/a> from the official count that determines congressional apportionment for the next decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Naturally,\nimmigration lobbyists and the left are aghast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nmigrant-advocacy group CASA and the American Civil Liberties Union have vowed\nto sue. Washington\nPost<\/a> editorialists\ndeclared Trump\u2019s plan is \u201cdoomed to fail.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nMigration Policy Institute (MPI) noted, “This\nis the first time that the [apportionment]count would be limited to\nU.S. citizens and lawfully present noncitizens.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According\nto the Constitution, \u201c[Congressional] Representatives\nshall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective\nnumbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state.\u201d But, as MPI\npoints out, \u201cthe Constitution does not\nspecifically define which persons must be included in the apportionment base.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pew Research Center<\/a> recently projected that if illegal aliens were excluded, California would lose two seats instead of one, Florida would gain one instead of two, and Texas would gain two instead of three.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would\nlose seats in a Census that includes illegal aliens. Simply reporting\n“total population change” — making no distinction between legal and\nillegal residents — effectively rewards states with high numbers of illegal\naliens. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While not disputing Pew\u2019s findings, MPI asserts that Trump\u2019s order could incorrectly lead to some 20 million<\/a> U.S. citizens lumped in with illegal aliens due to possible \u201cmatching errors.\u201d Note the qualifier \u201ccould.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be\nsure, numerous logistical challenges (not to mention a pandemic) complicate any\nheadcount in a nation of more than 330 million people. The one sure bet is that\n100 percent accuracy is impossible. But basing congressional delegations on\nnumbers known to include illegal aliens is 100 percent wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On principle, and as a matter of law, drawing a distinction between legal U.S. citizens and illegal aliens is common sense. FAIR<\/a> believes that distributing congressional seats according to illegally present individuals who cannot vote is utter nonsense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without knowing the tools available to the Census, MPI and partisan critics engage in unhelpful speculation while demonstrating little or no interest in the facts. Though the Supreme Court<\/a> last year barred the Census from asking respondents if they are U.S. citizens, the administration is allowed to collect information on citizenship status by other means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congress\nlong ago delegated the decennial Census to the executive branch. The Trump\nadministration is correct in saying that the integrity of the democratic\nprocess warrants exclusion of illegal aliens “to the extent feasible and\nto the maximum extent of the president’s discretion under the law.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

President Donald Trump has directed that the 2020 Census exclude illegal aliens from the official count that determines congressional apportionment for the next decade. Naturally, immigration lobbyists and the left are aghast. The migrant-advocacy group CASA and the American Civil Liberties Union have vowed to sue. Washington Post editorialists declared Trump\u2019s plan is \u201cdoomed to<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":16794,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[7],"tags":[9405,1524,5691,5348],"yst_prominent_words":[9508,2109,2019,5335,2386,3032,2241,7225,9507,9510,2013,2008,9509,2225,3783,7369,1945,1946,1939,2336],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23313"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23313"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23313\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23314,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23313\/revisions\/23314"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16794"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23313"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=23313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}