Cal Thomas: Censoring the census | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Cal Thomas: Censoring the census

Cal Thomas
1383224_web1_gtr-cmns-Thomas-070919

The notion of history repeating itself is usually viewed as a negative statement, but some history is worth repeating because we might learn and be guided by it.

In last month’s 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court rejecting the Trump administration’s claim that adding a question about whether a person is a U.S. citizen was for the purpose of helping to enforce the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice John Roberts left the door open for the administration to come up with a more compelling reason. Whether this can be done in time for the 2020 Census is doubtful without an extension for document printing. The court is on summer recess and won’t revisit the issue, if at all, until its next session.

However, a lawyer for the Trump administration said it is proceeding with the printing of the 2020 Census without adding a citizenship question.

The ultimate irony is that people employed to ask the questions must be U.S. citizens, or legal residents. A look at history should provide reason enough to include a citizenship question.

Since 1820, a question about U.S. citizenship has been on census forms with few exceptions. It was left off in 1960 and 2010.

Proof of citizenship is required when applying for most jobs in the country. When I travel internationally and return home, there are two lines at Immigration and Customs. One is for noncitizens and the other for citizens. A form requires me to state my citizenship and show my U.S. passport. To apply for a U.S. passport I must provide proof of citizenship.

In other countries, a stamp on my passport not only limits the amount of time I am allowed to stay, but also prohibits me from employment. In the UK, I can’t use the National Health Service because I am not a citizen. Other nations have a right to pass and enforce such laws. Only in America do we pass laws and then allow people to get away with ignoring them.

Here, a definition might be helpful. Dictionary.com defines “citizen” as a person who is “a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).”

That last part “distinguished from alien” is key. How does one determine whether a person is an alien, or a U.S. citizen, with the entitlements and benefits that go with citizenship? By asking the question, of course.

There is no right to be in America and no right to become a citizen, especially when some people break our laws to get here and then break them again to remain by failing to show up for a court hearing on the legitimacy of their asylum claims and ignoring deportation orders, which are issued after giving due process. The Trump administration says 2,000 are breaking deportation laws and avoiding forced removal from the country. President Trump says he will order ICE raids to return them to their countries.

Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and presidents Obama and Clinton, have previously supported immigration laws designed to keep immigrants out and remove those who managed to get in illegally.

A case can be made that Democrats want the citizenship question left off the 2020 form so they can import more future voters for their candidates and skewer districts to create a permanent electoral majority.

Politics, not the law, has changed everything. Both parties are at fault for failing to enforce existing laws and by not reforming the broken system. It is not only a disgrace, but national suicide. If it continues, the country we inherited from our forebears will be no more.

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.