Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts A Question for the Next Census
|
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
A Question for the Next Census
Gerard N. Magliocca
There is a controversy brewing about the Justice Department's request that the next census ask about citizenship status. The concern is that this question may discourage noncitizens from answering the census and thus lead to an undercount of that population that would affect all sorts of government programs, including representation in the House of Representatives.
Comments:
Gerard: There is a controversy brewing about the Justice Department's request that the next census ask about citizenship status. The concern is that this question may discourage noncitizens from answering the census and thus lead to an undercount of that population that would affect all sorts of government programs, including representation in the House of Representatives.
It is reasonable to assume, where the government is again enforcing immigration law, that a substantial number of illegal aliens would avoid the census and thus reduce the population count. This only becomes an issue under the 14A if the original meaning of "population" at the time of the Civil War amendments included illegal aliens given such a class of people was unknown at that time. If an eleven million person foreign army invaded the United States in 1869, would the Congress who proposed the amendments include them as part of the "population in the 1870 census?" The Amendment expressly excluded American Indians, who were not citizens at this time, from the population count even though they lived among the population. You have performed a great deal of research on this subject. Was there any discussion of which people constituted the population? Of course, given the law prohibits illegal aliens from receiving federal welfare state benefits, I do not see the problem in eliminating illegal aliens from the distribution formula for those benefits. The modern version would ask all citizens above the age of 18 whether their right to vote has ever been "denied . . . or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime. If they answer yes, are you going to offer a second question asking them how their vote was "denied . . . or in any way abridged?" There are no such laws of which I am aware. Laws meant to ensure citizenship like voter ID cannot rationally be considered an abridgment of the right of citizens to vote.
Am I to take it that "non-citizens" is a euphemism for "illegal aliens"? Because I've known a fair number of legal aliens, (I married one!) and none of them would have been afraid to respond to the census.
Indeed, it would be silly for your typical legal alien to be afraid to respond to the census, in as much as they already have a legal obligation to keep the government apprised of their residence. Bart's analogy to an invading army is one that's occurred to me, too. If a neighboring country should happen to invade during the census, must the soldiers be counted? If the answer is "no", I can't see why illegal aliens, present here contrary to the law, would be any different.
Brett:
Consider this from another point of view. What did the American Indians consider European immigrants settling on their land seeking economic opportunity and a better life? I believe illegal immigrants would not have begun to describe their view of our invasion.
Undoubtedly true. But, like the injustices done by the British to my Irish forbearers, (Who came here during the Potato famine.), that's among the sunk costs of history. I don't lose sleep over it.
What's going on now in Europe is probably more to the point. Society after society committing cultural suicide; The future will look back at us and be puzzled.
Here's how a couple of authors of new books looked back on the KKK of the early 20th century as described in this essay in the New Republic:
"The KKK’s Attempt to Define America" Two new books explain how the Klan gained so much power in the 1920s. By Eric Herschthal January 16, 2018 Here's a paragraph from the essay: *** Gordon, a professor at NYU and one of America’s most accomplished historians, has written The Second Coming of the KKK as an explicit political parable: Understanding the Klan of the 1920s can help us understand the rightwing populism of today. Unlike the original Klan that took root in the South shortly after the Civil War, the so-called “second Klan” of the 1920s, she shows, deemphasized lynching and secrecy, and though they continued to be extremely racist, did not always put anti-black racism front and center. Instead, it hosted parades and picnics, and spoke to the fears of individual communities, particularly in the Midwest and West. In fast-growing cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon and Muncie, Indiana, new immigrant groups—Eastern European Jews, Irish and Italian Catholics, Japanese—bore the brunt of the group’s racism. This was not because the Klan suddenly embraced black Americans, she argues, but because many of these cities lacked a sizable black population. *** https://newrepublic.com/article/146616/kkks-attempt-define-america A major political accomplishment of the KKK back then was its (4-6 million members) support for the Immigration Act of 1924. Note that the Irish had problems in this time frame many, many decades after the the Irish potato famine of the 1850s that led to Brett's forbearers coming to America. Deja vous [sic], Brett.
Brett: What's going on now in Europe is probably more to the point. Society after society committing cultural suicide; The future will look back at us and be puzzled.
Human migrations over history generally resulted in cultural change at minimum, more often war. The US has demonstrated immigration can work IF the immigrants are culturally assimilated. Substituting diversity for a melting pot is a recipe for destruction.
Brett's comments reminded of an NPR report on undocumented (aka illegal) Irish concerned with Trump's policy.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/22/578930256/undocumented-irish-unexpectedly-caught-in-trumps-immigration-dragnet I understand these are not dreamers for the most part. SPAM failed to note that many immigrants were thwarted regarding cultural assimilation both de jure and de facto.
Shag: Brett's comments reminded of an NPR report on undocumented (aka illegal) Irish concerned with Trump's policy.
I listened to that NPR segment. Immigration law enforcement has actually increased the most for non-hispanic illegals like the Irish and Chinese. So much for the meme that enforcing the law is racist.
Coincidentally the Irish and Chinese were targets of the KKK in the early 20th century. Prof. Gordon wrote her book with visions of the Trump immigration policy during the 2016 campaign
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], as I recall Brett thought that America's best days were in the Roaring Twenties. Maybe that's what Trump had in mind as to when America was great.
Shag, you're just recalling your previous aspersions against me. I understand, though; As you get older, the line between fantasy and reality does tend to thin.
Brett's:
"As you get older, the line between fantasy and reality does tend to thin." reminds me of an expression years ago: "Hair today, gone tomorrow." Fantasy? Reality? Or is that a photoshop? Actually, I'm recalling Brett's response to my question (years ago) when he thought were America's best years. Brett's response: The Roaring Twenties. (SPAM's response to that same question: The Gilded Age of the late 19th century.) Brett of course was not yet a potato bud back in the 1920s. But maybe Brett learned a tad about the role of the KKK regarding the Immigration Act of 1924 when as a youth in northern Michigan he was competing with Mexican farm laborers in pulling radishes.
Which comment?
Frankly, Brett is personally confirming that (his) memory is the second thing to go. Did reference to radishes make him blush?
The comment you claim I made about the Roaring Twenties being America's best years.
The problem with turning it up will be that Google doesn't have your daydreams indexed.
Brett:
I suspect our ancient correspondent is actually recalling my past observation that the 1920s after the 1920 depression was the most highly productive period of the 20th century. I believe Mr. W offered the 1960s in response during a lengthy discussion.
I think he's just recalling previous occasions on which he's baselessly made the same claim.
I did a search for my own posts in the context of the roaring twenties, and what did I come up with? "I don't think that there was a golden age, but that doesn't obligate me to welcome a leaden age with a smile."
I can see why even a legal non-citizen here might, in the current climate, be concerned with responding to the census. Remember, many o of them come from countries where the 'rule of law' is a farce and corruption is rampant. Even if you think they are misled by news accounts that the current administration is anti-immigration you can't deny such accounts are 'out there.' Therefore, even if they are legal you can see how they might be 'worried.'
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, equating illegal immigration to 'invasions' is goofy hyperbole. The Founders, and everyone else not part of a paranoid conspiracy theory mindset knows that an invasion involves conscious, coordinated efforts in ways that don't exist with immigration. It's interesting that immigration has really become the raison d'etre of American movement conservatism. The fear that the 'other' is going to come here and, ostensibly, vote differently than those here, is easily the most important issue among them. Reagan has been kicked to the curve with a mega-focus on such a temporarily partisan issue.
Check out the thread at this earlier post by Gerard for clues:
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/10/an-ideological-test.html Those were my SALADISTA days. Now back to the Archives.
"I can see why even a legal non-citizen here might, in the current climate, be concerned with responding to the census. Remember, many o of them come from countries where the 'rule of law' is a farce and corruption is rampant."
Again, I'll remind you that legal resident aliens are under a legal obligation to report any changes of residence to the INS. Failure to do so can lead to deportation. Given that, it would be absurd for them to hide from the Census. Like I said, I know a lot of legal resident aliens, and not one of them has the least fear of the government knowing where they live. Because it already does. In fact, they'd face legal jeopardy if it lost track of them! It's quite clear that "non-citizen" was being used as a euphemism for illegal alien; They're the only category of non-citizen in the US that would have anything to fear from responding to the census.
BD: Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, equating illegal immigration to 'invasions' is goofy hyperbole. The Founders, and everyone else not part of a paranoid conspiracy theory mindset knows that an invasion involves conscious, coordinated efforts in ways that don't exist with immigration.
Valid distinction. For that reason, I prefer my second analogy of Europeans settling in American Indian lands seeking a better life and economic opportunity. However, I do not see how the distinction is relevant to a determination of what people constitute the "population" under the original meaning of the 14A.
Here's a little more nostalgia from a post by Sandy just prior to the 2012 election:
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-october-surprise.html Check out SPAM's (they known as the "yodeler") predictions on the election and on FEMA. Compare the latter with Trump/GOP reactions to hurricanes in 2017 causing great damage to Texas and to Florida (also PR, but they don't vote). Back to the Archives.
"The Founders, and everyone else not part of a paranoid conspiracy theory mindset knows that an invasion involves conscious, coordinated efforts in ways that don't exist with immigration."
Given some of the history of Mexican involvement in promoting illegal immigration to America, I don't think you can really say that. Like this helpful little pamphlet for those considering invading the US. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/sep/06/mexico-african-asian-migration-us-exit-permit>Or how about Mexico giving illegal immigrants from other countries safe passage to the US, so long as they commit to crossing our border?</a> No, it's actually a lot more like an invasion that you'd like to admit. Encouraging and enabling illegal entry into the US is official Mexican policy.
Did Brett recognize that invasion when he was a mere laddie in northern Michigan when he had to compete with Mexican invaders in pulling radishes?
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], to what extent was there a conspiracy among American farmers to accommodate such invasion for purposes of agricultural productivity/capitalism? Was this de facto official American policy?
Whether the 14A requires states to use the total population (including illegal aliens) or some subset of that population appears to be an open question.
In Burns v. Richardson, the Court allowed Hawaii to use state citizens to apportion its state legislature, excluding a very large population of transient non-citizens. In the recent Evenwel v. Abbott decision, the Court dodged making a decision whether Texas could district based the voting-eligible persons, excluding children and a very large population of non-citizens, hundreds of thousands of which are here illegally. However, some of the historical research in Everwel is interesting: [During debates at the Constitutional Convention:] Endorsing apportionment based on total population, Alexander Hamilton declared: “There can be no truer principle than this—that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 473 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Are illegal immigrants part of the community at large? Do we look at the de jure reality that the law prohibits such aliens from being part of the community or the de facto reality that they are part of the community? Of note, Hawaii did not think non-state citizens, even if they were US citizens, were part of their community. [During debates on the 14A:] “As an abstract proposition,” argued Representative James G. Blaine, a leading critic of allocating House seats based on voter population, “no one will deny that population is the true basis of representation; for women, children, and other non-voting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of the country as those who actually deposit the ballot.” Id., at 141. See also id., at 358 (remarks of Rep. Conkling) (arguing that use of a voter-population basis “would shut out four fifths of the citizens of the country— women and children, who are citizens, who are taxed, and who are, and always have been, represented”); id., at 434 (remarks of Rep. Ward) (“[W]hat becomes of that large class of non-voting tax-payers that are found in every section? Are they in no matter to be represented? They certainly should be enumerated in making up the whole number of those entitled to a representative.”). During the 14A debates, the concern here among proponents of districting based on total population appeared to be limited to "women and children, who are citizens" Nothing about aliens - illegal or not. The reality is we did not a have a significant population of illegal aliens in the United States during the constitutional convention or the 14A congressional debates because the immigration laws were far more liberal.
"Of note, Hawaii did not think non-state citizens, even if they were US citizens, were part of their community."
Hawaii is barely willing to acknowledge as state citizens people who've lived there all their lives, if they're not of native Hawaiian descent.
Imagine the US government during Vietnam, knowing lots of US citizens were fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft, and knowing (let's say) that many were dying in that effort, published a pamphlet giving advice on how to be safe in that flight. That would hardly be an 'invasion,' which is an "incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."
Words mean things, and when conservatives start using them like post-modernists, we can assume some bs is involved re their motives.
I will pass on the whole "invasion" dispute here though have commented in the past.
The specific issue of asking the citizenship question is suitably addressed by Mr. W. Doing some research, the "last time the entire U.S. population was asked about citizenship status was in 1950." Instead, to address an argument cited for the request, "American Community Survey, which is sent out every year to a sample of the population; census experts say that’s enough to enforce the Voting Rights Act." [Atlantic article] The concerns btw are not necessarily limited to undocumented residents -- documented family members can be concerned as well. As Mr. W. notes, the fact some of these concerns are somewhat unreasonable doesn't erase the concern -- various people from various ideological groups have certain unreasonable fears when dealing with the government. It is good policy to try not to instigate such things, especially changing a policy in place for over fifty years. The change also can make the census process more complicated and costly. Again, for little net gain at all, if any. Finally, as Mr. W's recent comment notes, specific groups at specific times might reasonably have fears others might not.
A pamphlet how they might, once in Canada, avoid detection by Canadian police? Oh, come on, how do you think Canada would react to that?
Imagine the US government, knowing that Canada didn't want them entering, allowed people who weren't legally permitted to stop in the US to land at US ports, and be given safe passage to the Canadian border, where they would cross illegally into Canada. Just try to imagine that. That's act of war territory.
Brett's "Chicken Little" hyperbole:
"No, it's actually a lot more like an invasion that [sic] you'd like to admit. " and "That's act of war territory." Is it time for Congress to declare war?
Listen to Dinah Washington:
Post a Comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmBxVfQTuvI and think of "What A Difference Davos Makes." But who knows what Trump will say after 24 hours - or less.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |