Featured Post

New book available! David Kaiser, A Life in History

Mount Greylock Books LLC has published my autobiography as an historian,  A Life in History.   Long-time readers who want to find out how th...

Friday, May 10, 2019

Citizenship, the census, and the future of the US

The controversy over the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census, which reached the Supreme Court this week, illustrates once again the catastrophic state of our politics in our hyperpartisan era.  The status of millions of immigrants in the United States presents a serious problem, but neither party seems interested in giving them the permanent status that they deserve.  Instead, they focus upon the partisan advantages to be gained or lost from the census.  Meanwhile, the Republican Party seems to want to use the issue to return us, in yet another way, to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, when a large portion of the American working class did not enjoy the right to vote.

No one knows how many illegal immigrants are living in the United States.  11 million remains the most commonly quoted estimate, a carefully developed 2018 estimate found that the true number is probably about twice that figure.  These people now face increasing harassment from ICE, which is trying to speed up the deportation process.  Meanwhile, they make up a significant portion of our labor force, especially in certain states and in certain industries.  Our economy, in all probability, could not function without them.

A functional federal government, it seems to me, would recognize that most of these people now belong to American society and deserve the status of citizenship.  Such a government would also want to know how many of them there really are.  For these reasons, it seems to me, a question asking U.S. residents for their citizenship status on the census form makes perfect sense, and indeed, the census asked questions about citizenship 14 times since 1820, either about all enumerated adults, all enumerated people, or a sample of enumerated people.  The argument before the Supreme Court suggested that a 5-4 majority is likely to approve the question, and I personally cannot regard such a decision as unreasonable.

Rather than provide an argument for giving legal status to illegal immigrants, however, the Trump Administration’s question seems designed to shift the political balance of power further in favor of the Republican Party in two different ways.  First, evidence does show that in today’s climate, significant numbers of inhabitants may try to avoid census takers altogether rather than acknowledge their status.  That will undercount inhabitants in certain states, particularly in urban areas, and thus potentially reduce their representation in Congress in the redistribution of seats that will follow the 2020 census.  That, however, is not all.  In Texas and elsewhere, Republican officials want to use answers to a citizenship question to base the drawing of congressional, state and city legislative districts on equal numbers of citizens, rather than people.  That would shift representation away from poorer, largely nonwhite areas.  And while the Constitution specifies that the number of representatives in each state must be based on the whole number of persons in that state, it does not mandate using the same standard for drawing the districts within a state.

Thus, under Republican rule at the local or national level, the citizenship question may allow ICE to expand deportation measures against millions of people, while also creating a large class of unrepresented inhabitants in our elections.  This is not without precedent in American history.

The Union victory in the Civil War, led, first, to the abolition of slavery in the 13th amendment, then to the extension of citizenship (although not the right to vote) to all persons born in the United States, and lastly, to the end of restrictions on the right to vote based on race in the 15th amendment.  White southerners accepted black suffrage only at the point of guns carried by federal troops, however, and after the withdrawal of those troops in 1877, various forms of intimidation, including murder, either kept black voters away from the polls or persuaded them to vote for ex-Confederate candidates.  In subsequent decades state laws made it virtually impossible for black citizens—and many poor white ones as well-- to vote.  These measures had spectacular results.  In Mississippi, which had the largest proportion of black inhabitants, the total presidential vote fell from 165,000 in 1876 to 70,000 in 1896.  In South Carolina the total vote fell from 233,000 to 69,000 in the same period.  Not only nearly the entire black population, but also much of the white working class, lacked the vote in the southern United States from the late nineteenth century until the second half of the twentieth—a situation that allowed for the rule of an oligarchy in much of the United States.

A 5-4 Republican majority invalidated a key section of the Voting Rights Act in 2015, and since then, Republicans in various states have taken steps to make it harder—although hardly impossible—for poor and black people to vote.  Those steps, however, threaten democracy less, in my opinion, than the continued presence of millions of lower-paid workers and their families who are not citizens and therefore cannot vote.  Such people may already hold the balance of power in Texas, now our second-largest state, and in other states.  The Trump Administration’s public focus on “border security” has diverted attention from their status, and if Democratic politicians favor granting them a quick path to citizenship, they are certainly being very quiet about it.  I do not think that even the Trump Administration seriously imagines that they might deport most or all of those millions of people, or that the nation would tolerate the consequences of doing so.  But I do think that the Republican Party wants to keep a large segment of the working class without rights, by refusing to make them citizens, and therefore to make it easier to keep political power in the hands of our economic elite.  That in turn increases resentment between citizens and non-citizens among the lower half of the population, making it harder for them to unite to reverse the growing trend towards inequality.  The question before the country is whether we truly want to undo all the gains of the last 120 years or so and return to an era of oligarchy and deeply flawed democracy.


Bozon said...


Great detailed post. Suffrage a sticky wicket.

I don't think much of the right to vote, really.

Universal suffrage, highly frowned upon by the founders. Not their ideal at all.

Highly overrated in general.

When Muslims get the right to vote, they go for radical Islam.IS

As you admitted, and Trump campaigned, re the Hillary Clinton campaign, what had the Democrats done for negroes lately: less than nothing.

Why would anyone suppose that current Democrats would suddenly rear up and give Latino illegals a windfall like the Radical Republicans gave freed negroes in Reconstruction? No way.

It was Camelot for thos,e freed negroes, never to be seen again by illegals or freed slaves anywhere in the world surely.

Give it up on voting as a way out of anything for anyone ever.

All the best

Feryl said...

For those of us who belong to Gen X or the Millennials, we came of age hearing about the flaws of the early-mid 20th century, since we had Silent and Boomer parents/grandparents who groused about Uncle Sam having too much power and "confiscating" wealth. Unfortunately for our overall political trajectory, Silents and Boomers had no first had experience with the utterly miserable and decadent nature of late 19th century America, so it would seem that they were destined to take for granted the positive developments of the early-mid 20th century, and throw them away leading us to a climate similar to the one that we had in the pre-Progressive era. It would also seem that a fair number of Gen X and Millennials are also adamantly opposed to certain features of the Progressive and New Deal era; Gen X dislikes the re-distributive policies of those eras, while Millennials dislike the cultural conservatism of those eras.

Anything to be hopeful about? Well, Millennials are far more in favor of re-distributive econ policies, and infrastructure spending, than Silents, Boomers, and Gen X. And since Millennials are the most financially wracked generation in a long, long time, it would stand to reason that they don't buy into the neo-liberal era's dedication to constantly slashing taxes on the rich. On the other hand, Silents are the wealthiest generation and therefore the most opposed to Robin Hoodism.

Ed Boyle said...

Here is good historical analysis of noncitizen voting rights during colonial times and last 200 years of our nation's history. Current status seems less important than what is allowed and how socially acceptable it is. I recall reading how in the Nethrlands generally lws change after slow attitude changes take place and old laws have become irrelevant. Against perhaps a comically stiff old Prussian attitude (outworn stereotype)in Germany thsat simply follows law for its own sake. With marijuana we see attitudes changing. Perhaps as portraye in the above article the way to normallizing foreigner staus before inevitable naturalization is voting rights in school boards, mayoral elections, statewide elections and eventually national elections. Of course an open debate on these matters would require serious determination of who should be allowed to enter the country for what reasons. If an Indian Ph.d or Korean physician has to pay his dues while a Honduran refugee just has to march up to the border then we have different measures. I have read that mexico is doing better over tim due to NAFTA and that many have gone back home since the housing boom crashed around 2008 and made construction jobs less available so that the plus/minus of flow is more equalled out. Illegal arrivals see more due to neoliberal support of corruption/dictatorship in Central American countries. This problem could be solved from D.C. but they talk about building a wall as national strikes are threatened over privatization wave in Honduras and riots wih deaths from government secret agents shooting at crowds, hiding behind police. All supported by our corporate-state oligarchy. If we took democracy seriously immigrants waves would not exist. Qaddafi's 'regime'had a high standard of living. Why fix what ain't broken? Now Europe experienced refugee crisis due to engineered color revolutions. Similar experiments happen continually, not just in headline propaganda from bipartisan bloodthirsty press on Venezuela. Underreported CIA coups happen all the time in Latin America and elsewhere.

That seems off topic but trade and foreign policy, weapon sales, etc. like Yemen war, Venezuela all promote refugee flows, destabilize, impoverish. Raytheon or other missile manufacturers, small arms co,mpanies need markets. Better to sell butter than guns although of course loczal butter is better as then locals mustn't emigrate to the north. If our economies tank and oil runs out our cold climate could make us refugees to Mexico, Africa. Perhaps at least if gringos are unwelcome, latinos would be able to return and put in a good word for us if we treated them halfway decently. Our whole policy, intern as well as foreign policy must be balanced. Push and pull.

Michael A Humphreys said...


The current crisis is entirely a function of the 1986 Amnesty signed by Reagan, which was sold as 'reform' with better enforcement. Instead, the number of illegal immigrants rose from about 5 million in 1986 to 20-25 million thirty years later. Amnesty encourages just more law-breaking (by both workers and employers).

I call my immigration proposal the Sinai-Jordan Covenant. A border wall along the U.S.-Mexican border identical to the one running down the Sinai Peninsula along the Israeli- Egyptian border. Immigration laws exactly as the late Barbara Jordan wanted them to be, including mandatory E-Verify with swift and severe enforcement against _employers_, and a reduction in legal immigration to about half a million a year. We also need to limit 'family reunification' to spouses and children.

My compromise for current illegal aliens who have been here for an extended period of time would be permanent green card status with no hope of citizenship. There must be _some_ cost to breaking our laws. This would also entirely block chain migration driven by illegal immigration.

I simply cannot understand why the Left doesn't see mass immigration as mass scab labor pushed relentlessly by the Chamber of Commerce.