Why is everything politics? The citizen question issue is questionable 🤥

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

We can ask the above question but not are you a citizen?

The story being built by Democrats on the issue of census questions is pathetic, disturbing and insulting to legal immigrants; citizens or not. Take a look at the questions asked on the 2000 census long form. Now it’s a big deal because the question may be more widespread?

The only way to assure no immigrants are offended is to limit the census to native American reservations. Ridiculous?

Certainly, and so is the transparent partisan claim that legal immigrants and certain ethnic groups will shun the census because their country wants to know how many residents are citizens.

We are not talking about “immigrants.” Once again we are talking about Hispanic immigrants and illegal immigrants who are being used as political pawns. Tell me; how will “Including a citizenship question on the census spread more fear among immigrants who are worried the information will be used against them.” Which immigrants are we talking about?

Friend —

This week, the Trump administration announced that they intend to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census — and now it’s up to us to stop them.

Adding this question to the census, especially at this point in the process and without any testing, is extremely reckless. It could decrease response rates in communities with large immigrant populations and produce inaccurate results due to incomplete counts. Congress depends on those results not only to decide how to distribute federal resources — but also to determine the number of congressional districts in each state.

This calculated move is a clear attempt by Republicans to maximize their political power and undermine fair representation in government. We must do everything we can to stop it.

Add your name to oppose the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census.


Many immigrants are already fearful of deportation under the Trump administration. Including a citizenship question on the census will spread more fear among immigrants who are worried the information will be used against them.

But this move is not only another attempt to intimidate immigrants — it is an attempt by Republicans to sabotage important census data to rig our political system in their favor. It is critical that we speak out against it.

Stand up against the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Add your name today.

Thanks for taking a stand against this reckless decision.


Tom Perez


Democratic National Committee


  1. I feel the question of citizenship SHOULD be included. With the information the census gathers, it determines the federal aid and the amount of representation to a state. We should know how much is spent because of Illegals. Maybe it would open the eyes of the citizens. I am all for LEGAL immigration and giving safety amnesty to some who ask for it due to war in their areas.
    We cannot take the world into the US. Just imagine, our government giving you a check or card with a limit on it and them keeping all the rest of your money. Many still come here thinking our streets are paved with Gold. They are paved with cement by hard working masons. Back in the days our forefathers came, they entered thru Ellis Island. Checked for diseases and crimes.
    Many were turned back. Now anyone come in including the MS13 gang members. Why
    so the Dems can get more votes. I think we should get a few families together and move them into the NY home of the Clintons, then the Obamas, and a few others and let them pay for their food, clothing and shelter. You would hear an uproar so fast. Remember how many acres the Clintons have and how big that home is, they could fit several families. Obama’s new home is spacious too,.


  2. According to the law, not the Politically Correct nonsense, the people who will be affected by this are NOT immigrants, there are illegal aliens. Get back to the LEGAL FACTS and all of this nonsense beng spiuted bytr the democrats goes away.



  3. I learned long ago if you want to effect change you have to define the scope of the problem and have a way to measure it. To me, it is only logical to ask the question on citizenship. Not all non-citizens are illegal. In fact some US Territories citizens are not US citizens. Do I believe that they will get an accurate count with or without the citizenship question on the census with Trump in office? I think the answer to that will be no. I do not think an illegal immigrant will answer any census for fear of ICE will come after them. Will that hurt sanctuary states? Yes in terms of funding for welfare and health programs and I bet they will even challenge the way the count is conducted even if it is done exactly as 2010.

    I am even in favor of asking are you an illegal alien. You would think that California would love that question. I am not sure that anyone would answer that they were an illegal alien and therefore California would be entitled to all the money due for 100% of its population, legal or not since the census would find no illegals.

    Both parties like to abuse data to their advantage for example gerrymandering cases over the years. The gun lobby knows this to be true to the point that they got laws passed to limit what data could be collected and abused by both sides of the gun debate. So many actions these days are taken on a single, non-peer reviewed study, in which raw data is adulterated that it is very hard to find the truth. Not collecting the data makes it hard for others to contest the faulty reports and actions. We need to collect the raw data.


  4. Political, maybe. Financial, certainly. Follow the money.

    Like everything else, the issue will be resolved (or not) by litigation, someday.

    Seems clear that the census can ask about citizenship. It already asks about sex, race, age; and just as important, in the long form, it already asks about citizenship. It used to ask about citizenship on the short form, last, i believe back in 1950. Simply, in 1820, the census asked about citizenship – when the founders who wrote the Constitution were still alive – they, obviously didn’t think it violated the constitution or any other law.

    The challenges being mounted suggest they will challenge this in federal court under the constitution. However, this is not a constitutional question. The constitution provides for a census of all persons. However, historically, nothing has precluded asking informational questions – so long as you ask them of everyone you encounter.

    The second claim will likely be that it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as well as the Voting Rights Act. However, neither law has linked the census activity with the privilege of voting. And, anyway, the privilege of voting only belongs to citizens – as clearly confirmed in the 14th Amendment.

    I think it clear the framers wanted to count everyone in the census (including white males who had not yet reached the age of majority, as well as felons who were ineligible to vote, and legal and illegal aliens – we didn’t actually have illegal aliens until later). Seems very clear, particularly considering the 3/5ths rule, that they intended to count noses – regardless of citizen status, age, sex, race, etc.

    The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives was a big time issue in drafting the Constitution – and the compromise of government based solely on representation (number of individuals) vs. state by state representation. Who to count was an issue. They don’t call it the 3/5ths Compromise for nothing – all slaves of a particular state are to be counted as three-fifths of a white person. The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes.

    The Three-Fifth Compromise has its roots further back in history, dating back to the Continental Congress in 1783. The Compromise was a result of the apportionment of taxes being related to land values.

    Initially, there was no income tax and federal taxes were levied based on land value. States then reduced their taxes by depreciating property values. A change was proposed to population. Not clear whether 3/5ths related to the then widespread concept that slaves were property or not.

    I can see where some might argue the alternate – that counting persons here illegally (like counting people who are here legally and in the United States on vacation from another country) could be construed as a potential violation of the later provisions in the Second Section of the 14th Amendment – where a person might claim the counting of illegals (which did not exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) does infringe, “in any way”, on the privilege of voting by increasing the voting power of citizens who live in districts with massive illegal populations.

    So, the response to the legal challenge, may come in at least two parts:
    • Like current day gerrymandering, the issue will be whether including all persons in the apportionment has the effect of abridging or infringing on the privilege of voting which the Constitution specifically reserves to citizens (the language is “in any way”), and
    • While, at the same time, excluding illegal aliens by asking “intrusive” questions, will be claimed to alter the voting power relative to how seats have been apportioned in the House in the past and/or, on a 14th amendment, equal protection basis, how it will affect the allocation of the protection of federal laws that allocate support (law enforcement, whatever) relying on population.
    States lawsuits will likely be removed to the DC District Court, consolidated, and after the initial pleadings, and before any discovery, I expect the defense to make a motion to dismiss the case (which I believe may be approved).

    Else, allowed to go forward, where a state can challenge a federal government administrative decision on what questions to ask on the census, that becomes one really big can of worms.

    The note you reference looks like a fundraiser to me. So, as they say, follow the money.


    1. Great response. I didn’t realize that the 3/5 provision in Article 1 was there until the 14th Amendment. You learn something new everyday. I just wish those in Washington would read the US Constitution once in a while.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s