2020 Census: Should non-citizens be allowed to elect who governs us

In mid-January, a federal judge blocked an additional question to the survey that wants to ask whether the participant is a U.S. citizen.  The Supreme Court promised yesterday to hear the case quickly so that the matter is resolved before the 2020 Census.  The Census is done every ten years so that Congress knows how to regulate federal money and can determine the representation of districts.  The number of electoral votes is also determined by the Census.  

Liberal leaders have long been counting illegals in the Census to inflate representation, and then electing representatives who declare their area a "sanctuary" for more illegal populations.  This creates an endless cycle that damages our democracy.

When the federal judge first blocked the motion to add a citizenship question to the Census, Reuters reported on the measure with clear insight into why Democrats are so opposed to it stating in their coverage:

The plaintiffs — 18 U.S. states, 15 cities and various civil rights groups — said that asking census respondents whether they are U.S. citizens will frighten immigrants and Latinos into abstaining from the count.

Whether or not a question asked by our government invokes any negative feelings in certain demographics isn't grounds for it being unconstitional.  Additionally, the "plaintiffs" are arguing with negative stereotypes that imply that immigrants and Latinos cannot also be U.S. citizens.

The article continued:

That could cost their mostly Democratic-leaning communities representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as their share of some $800 billion a year in federal funding.

At least the Democrats' motives are clear as to why they oppose this question.  Knowing that this all comes down to the importance of election seats and federal money appropriations should be even more of a reason to apply a citizenship question.  Eight hundred billion dollars in taxpayer funds is dispersed among the states based on Census counts, so states like California (with by far the highest illegal alien population) are essentially stealing from states like Maine.

Reuters goes on to state:

The plaintiffs alleged that was Ross' plan all along, while he insisted the government needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects eligible voters from discrimination. Only American citizens can vote in federal elections.

Illegal aliens do not even have to vote in our elections to manipulate our republic, since their mere presence can inflate representation in their districts.  It is not even a discrimination issue, since not all of the illegal aliens in America are from a protected class.  Also, the plaintiffs claiming they know the secret thoughts behind Ross's Census question is ridiculous.  Even if he intended for the question to "frighten immigrants and Latinos," that isn't a legal argument.  

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses solely aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens and where the information from the Census is applied.  In the first section, it reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Section two reads, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state."  Considering that this directly follows the first, there should be no confusion on the term "persons" in the second section to refer to any persons other than citizens.

The Census was proposed by the framers of the Constitution, in Article I, Section 2, so the people of America would have power over their newly formed government.  Other countries used their censuses to monitor economics, but the Founders had a bold new plan to use a Census count to determine representation in Congress.

What sort of country is left in the modern age if the government isn't allowed to ask the people if they are citizens?  If this argument wins in the Supreme Court come April and next year's Census includes a citizenship question that causes just one fewer representative, then it is a major win for all citizens of America.  This is not a Republican versus Democrat battle, even if it will have negative effects for Democrats.  Knowing how many citizens our country is composed of is simply a matter of having accurate information that realizes our Founding Fathers' dream of the people controlling their government.

The Census was written into the U.S. Constitution while abortion, gun control, welfare, and undeclared foreign wars were not.  Our Constitution specifically says the number of voting citizens determines the states representation in the House.  Since only citizens can vote, it's a perfect question to ask.

Connect with Taylor Day on Facebook and Twitter!

In mid-January, a federal judge blocked an additional question to the survey that wants to ask whether the participant is a U.S. citizen.  The Supreme Court promised yesterday to hear the case quickly so that the matter is resolved before the 2020 Census.  The Census is done every ten years so that Congress knows how to regulate federal money and can determine the representation of districts.  The number of electoral votes is also determined by the Census.  

Liberal leaders have long been counting illegals in the Census to inflate representation, and then electing representatives who declare their area a "sanctuary" for more illegal populations.  This creates an endless cycle that damages our democracy.

When the federal judge first blocked the motion to add a citizenship question to the Census, Reuters reported on the measure with clear insight into why Democrats are so opposed to it stating in their coverage:

The plaintiffs — 18 U.S. states, 15 cities and various civil rights groups — said that asking census respondents whether they are U.S. citizens will frighten immigrants and Latinos into abstaining from the count.

Whether or not a question asked by our government invokes any negative feelings in certain demographics isn't grounds for it being unconstitional.  Additionally, the "plaintiffs" are arguing with negative stereotypes that imply that immigrants and Latinos cannot also be U.S. citizens.

The article continued:

That could cost their mostly Democratic-leaning communities representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as their share of some $800 billion a year in federal funding.

At least the Democrats' motives are clear as to why they oppose this question.  Knowing that this all comes down to the importance of election seats and federal money appropriations should be even more of a reason to apply a citizenship question.  Eight hundred billion dollars in taxpayer funds is dispersed among the states based on Census counts, so states like California (with by far the highest illegal alien population) are essentially stealing from states like Maine.

Reuters goes on to state:

The plaintiffs alleged that was Ross' plan all along, while he insisted the government needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects eligible voters from discrimination. Only American citizens can vote in federal elections.

Illegal aliens do not even have to vote in our elections to manipulate our republic, since their mere presence can inflate representation in their districts.  It is not even a discrimination issue, since not all of the illegal aliens in America are from a protected class.  Also, the plaintiffs claiming they know the secret thoughts behind Ross's Census question is ridiculous.  Even if he intended for the question to "frighten immigrants and Latinos," that isn't a legal argument.  

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses solely aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens and where the information from the Census is applied.  In the first section, it reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Section two reads, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state."  Considering that this directly follows the first, there should be no confusion on the term "persons" in the second section to refer to any persons other than citizens.

The Census was proposed by the framers of the Constitution, in Article I, Section 2, so the people of America would have power over their newly formed government.  Other countries used their censuses to monitor economics, but the Founders had a bold new plan to use a Census count to determine representation in Congress.

What sort of country is left in the modern age if the government isn't allowed to ask the people if they are citizens?  If this argument wins in the Supreme Court come April and next year's Census includes a citizenship question that causes just one fewer representative, then it is a major win for all citizens of America.  This is not a Republican versus Democrat battle, even if it will have negative effects for Democrats.  Knowing how many citizens our country is composed of is simply a matter of having accurate information that realizes our Founding Fathers' dream of the people controlling their government.

The Census was written into the U.S. Constitution while abortion, gun control, welfare, and undeclared foreign wars were not.  Our Constitution specifically says the number of voting citizens determines the states representation in the House.  Since only citizens can vote, it's a perfect question to ask.

Connect with Taylor Day on Facebook and Twitter!