Tag Archives: non-citizens in the census

A Question That Needs An Answer

Posted on by

On Sunday, Just the News posted an article titled, “Did Founding Framers intend for the Census to count Illegal aliens? Courts could soon decide.” This is an important question because it impacts the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Historical evidence suggests the framers did not intend for illegal immigrants to be counted for apportionment. A new lawsuit filed by the State of Missouri urges the Census Bureau to return to that original understanding.

The Constitution’s text 

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires an “actual enumeration” of the population for purposes of congressional representation. The Fourteenth Amendment later clarified that this enumeration must count the “whole number of persons” residing in each state.

The Constitution, however, has never been interpreted to require counting every individual physically present within a state on census day. For example, no cases have contended that the Census Bureau must count temporary visitors, such as foreign tourists or short-term travelers. 

While there is broad agreement that the phrase “whole number of persons” does not require a literal counting of every individual physically present in a state at a given moment, there is disagreement over whether it requires the Census Bureau to include illegal immigrants.

For much of American history, whether illegal immigrants should be included in the census was a purely academic question. For nearly a century after the nation’s founding, there were few meaningful federal restrictions on immigration. Congress did not enact the first statute excluding certain classes of immigrants until 1875. Numerical limits on immigration were not imposed until the Immigration Act of 1921, and unauthorized entry across the border was not criminalized until 1929. 

Because lawful immigration was relatively accessible, illegal immigration remained limited for much of the nation’s early history.

The article concludes:

The framers’ and early Congresses’ repeated use of the term “inhabitant” is significant. In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century legal usage, the term was closely associated with the concept of domicile—a fixed, lawful, and enduring residence. That concept stands in sharp contrast to transient presence or unlawful entry, suggesting that the Constitution’s original understanding of apportionment was tied to lawful, settled membership in a political community.

Will the Supreme Court decide?

Missouri’s lawsuit may finally force a definitive answer. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices may be asked to determine whether the Constitution permits counting illegal aliens for purposes of apportionment. Missouri has asked for expedited resolution of its case.

The census should be limited to citizens–the people who have skin in the game.

Why President Trump Is Asking For A New Census

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Federalist posted an article explaining the need for a new census and the reason President Trump is asking that it be done before the mid-term elections.

The article reports:

President Donald Trump announced Thursday he instructed the Commerce Department to begin working on a census that does not include illegal aliens. It’s a long-overdue correction to a system that Democrats have exploited for years to tip the balance of power in Washington.

“I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump said.

Trump previously signed a memo in 2020 that barred illegal aliens from being counted in the census. The memo was challenged and made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately did not rule on the merits as to whether all residents — regardless of their legal status — must be counted and if the president has the authority to exclude nonresidents.

The high court however did rule in the 1976 decision Mathews v. Diaz, a case regarding the Social Security Act, that while illegal immigrants are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments, they are not entitled to the benefits of citizenship. 

The article concludes:

NBC News’ Alexandra Marquez says not counting illegal aliens would be “contrary to the Constitution.”

But that is a suspect conclusion drawn by the propaganda press. The Framers likely would not support the position that illegal aliens who invaded the nation should be counted in apportionment to determine representation. In fact, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, most northern states advocated for no slaves to be counted in the apportionment proceedings so that slaveholding states, some of which had slave populations as high as 43 percent of their total residents, would not have an unfair amount of representation compared to their actual voting weight.

Yet, we’re supposed to believe Axios, NBC News, and NPR that illegal aliens would have been counted in the census?

Counting illegal alien in the census skews congressional apportionment and the electoral college — and the American citizen pays the price in diluted representation and misallocated resources.

I would like to see some of the people who support rights reserved for American citizens being bestowed on illegal aliens go to another country and try to claim the rights of that country’s citizens. It would be interesting to see what happens next.

Who Does Congress Represent?

Posted on by

Theoretically, Congress represents the will of the American people. The House of Representatives is set up according to the population of each state–states with larger populations get more Representatives. The Senate has two Senators from every state regardless of population. The census determines what the numbers are. The law requires an American census every ten years. Some years the census has had a question regarding citizenship on its long form, and some years there was no long form. President Trump is asking that the citizenship question be added to the short form. Congress is supposed to represent Americans–not citizens of other countries who live her for various reasons. Adding the citizenship question and apportioning representatives accordingly would provide a more representative government. If non citizens are not counted in the census, California and New York would have fewer representatives in Congress and those states would receive less federal funds.

On June 30th, Just the News reported:

The Supreme Court has never made a determination on the legal merits of the argument that noncitizens should not be counted in the United States census, but may soon be forced to do so.

The fight to clarify the census and subsequently adjust congressional seats, Electoral College votes and federal funding, is coming down the pike, according to White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller. 

Miller indicated last month that he’s eager to dive straight in and that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will help lead the effort. 

Trump has at his disposal a number of avenues to accomplish his goal, one of which includes Lutnick’s agency. Utilizing this route, the Commerce Department could propose adding a census question to distinguish citizens, legal permanent residents, and unauthorized immigrants, as suggested by a lawsuit filed by Republican-led states and the Department of Commerce in January 2025. The data could then be used to exclude noncitizens from apportionment, though not necessarily from the overall count. 

The article notes:

In 2020, the Trump administration sought to exclude noncitizens from the U.S. Census count which is used to apportion congressional seats and Electoral College votes, a move that sparked significant controversy. In July of that year, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the Census Bureau to use administrative records to identify and exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count, arguing that including them dilutes the political power of citizens and constitutes voter suppression.

The administration argued that the Constitution’s mandate to count “persons” did not explicitly require counting noncitizens for apportionment. This effort faced immediate legal challenges from blue states and cities, many of which were sanctuary jurisdictions, and immigrant advocacy groups, who argued the policy violated the Constitution and would discourage immigrant participation in the census, potentially undercounting communities with large noncitizen populations.

This is a battle to watch. The question is, “Who is Congress supposed to represent?”