US Census Counted Everyone as Citizens

August 24, 2010

PeeringThrough copy.jpg
De Facto "immigration reform."

The $14.5 billion US Census asked your national origin. But it didn't ask if you were a US citizen. An estimated 20 million
illegal immigrants were counted as citizens.

By Andrew Lanyard
(for henrymakow.com)

 

I was one of the half-million people hired to work on the 2010 Census which cost $14.5 billion, more than three times the 2000 Census. The 2010 census cost about $47 for every man, woman, and child in America.

The Census asked every conceivable question but the obvious one: Are you a citizen?


It asked about everyone who lives in your household, but made no effort to determine citizenship status. (Think of it as don't ask-don't tell.)

It asks if your kids are adopted and whether you have a mortgage; and do you identify yourself as Hispanic (and if so, are you Mexican, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc., etc.), but it never asks about citizenship.

Given the fact that there are tens of millions of illegal aliens in the country (plus, of course, many other people here legally, but not citizens), the significance (and real purpose) is to make sure that as many non-citizens as humanly possible are included -- and are therefore represented in the apportionment of Congress.


The Constitution says the purpose of the census is to properly apportion representation in Congress. Our Congressmen represent the citizens of their states so I had assumed that the census would be counting only citizens. But no, it counts everyone living in the United States, whether they are citizens or not. And that includes illegal aliens.

Of course, illegal aliens might be reluctant to come "out of the shadows" (as they say). So now it made sense why there was such a great effort of ferret everyone out, even if it meant intruding on people's lives. One of the major goals of the census is to include  every non-citizen, including every illegal alien, in the final count.

This means that the census is now deliberately anti-Constitutional. If illegal aliens are counted in California, then California will be sure to get additional seats in Congress (despite the fact that many citizens have been leaving California over the past 10 years). The same is true of other states with large numbers of illegals.

By the same token, other states (like where I live) which have relatively few immigrants are in danger of losing representation. In fact, if California (and some other states) gain, then states like mine must lose. This is the exact opposite of the true (and only Constitutional) purpose of the census.

To appreciate how strong an effect this can have, we just have to consider how many illegal aliens there are in the U.S. The figure is typically given as 12 million, but that's a government/media figure. Before it got swallowed by its competitors (with the government's help), Bear Stearns did a demographic study of the question. They had no ax to grind; they just wanted an honest figure for its bearing on making financial decisions. They concluded -- about 3 years ago -- that conservatively there were 20 million.
 
DEMOGRAPHIC DESTRUCTION

I'm all for welcoming immigrants, as long as they come here legally, are willing to work and our economy can accommodate them. 

But for more than twenty years, we have been inundated with millions of immigrants whose culture is not only radically different from ours but who have no desire to assimilate. Each year has been like a slow motion reenactment of Jean Raspail's apocalyptic novel, The Camp of the Saints. (This is true of Canada as well. See the recent article by Kevin Michael Grace on vdare.com.) 

This unending flood is leading to the demographic destruction of America. This process can still be stopped before it is too late, but it seems to me we are close to the tipping point.  

Unfortunately the government wants to continue and even advance this process. This is true of both political parties. I assume the real purpose is either to create the conditions for a merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, or else foster the breakup and balkanization of America. Either result would serve the goals of the Illuminati.

In its own modest way, the 2010 Census has been a part of this process. It expended great effort and spent double-digit billions to count and "lock in" the tens of millions of non-citizens who are now in our country. It is counting them so that Congress will soon be apportioned in a way that gives them as much representation as Americans, and in a way that erodes our own representation. It's a form of de facto merger, de facto "immigration reform." 

Unfortunately, in my own modest way, I was a part of the process too. I needed the money. And I'm grateful for the friends I made . But I can't help feeling ambivalent. I thought I would be doing something worthwhile and I tried to do a good job. But now it's clear to me that my efforts were made to serve subversive ends.

---
Addendum:

The questions were as follows:
1) How many people were living in your house, apartment or mobile home on April 1st? (This means any dwelling. As I
     said in my article, census workers in the field checked out and left forms on garages, broken down shacks, tool sheds,
     chicken coops, etc. You never know, especially when you're counting illegal aliens.
2) Is the dwelling owned or rented? If owned, is there a mortgage?
3) What is your name, address and phone number?
4) What is your gender?
5) What is your age and date of birth?
6) Are you Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin? (This to cover the different terms that a person might use to identify
himself; i.e., someone might think of himself as being of Spanish origin but not as a "Hispanic." We want to make
 sure this person is properly grouped in with the "Hispanics.") If yes, then are you Mexican, Mexican American or   Chicano? Puerto Rican? Cuban? Another? (You're told you can write in Colombian, Dominican, etc., etc. We want everyone to be comfortable.)
7) What is your race? White? Black, African American, Negro? (The last term caused some offense among professional blacks, and African Americans, but it was deemed necessary because apparently a significant portion of the older population still identifies with the term "Negro.") American Indian or Alaska Native? (If so, there's a space for you to write in your tribe.) Asian Indian? Chinese? Filipino? Japanese? Korean? Vietnamese? Other Asian? (Here you get a space to write it in. Suggestions are Hmong, Laotian Thai, etc., etc.) Native Hawaiian? Guamanian or Chamorro?
     Samoan? Other Pacific Islander? (Again, a space: Fijian? Tongan? Etc.) Finally, Some other race? (Fill in the blank.)
     Obviously no one is just an American anymore (all the more so now that non-Americans are counted right alongside Americans). Here we see politically correct identity politics running rampant, as well as intellectual incoherence in the confusion of race, ethnicity and nationality. (Note too there are no Euro-Americans. Swedish? Polish?)
8)  Do you sometimes live or stay somewhere else? College? Military? Seasonal residence? Jail? Nursing home?
      For child custody?
Then, believe it or not, the census worker (sometimes including those of us in the office who handled the phones)
is supposed to go through all of the above questions not only for the main person in each household who's answering the census, but for each and every person given in the answer to #1. Plus the census requires we be told the relationship of each person to the main person. This gets to be pretty intrusive. Husband or wife? Unmarried partner? Roommate or housemate? Roomer or boarder? Son or daughter? Stepson? Adopted son? Biological son? Son-in-law? Etc. Etc.
The only limit is the limit of possible relationships. And by the way, what is the middle initial of each person?
 


 

Comments for "US Census Counted Everyone as Citizens"

Wayne said (August 26, 2010):

JD's derision of Andrew Lanyard's thoughtful piece is unwarranted. In typical liberal fashion, JD launches a verbal assault intended to cower an opponent into retreat, hurling names like "whining," "absurd jingoism," and "ignorance" while ignoring the article's central issue: "It [the census] is counting them [tens of millions of non-citizens] so that Congress will soon be apportioned in a way that gives them as much representation as Americans, and in a way that erodes our own representation."

This issue deserves to be treated seriously, not ridiculed and dismissed. We in the U.S. are now in danger of losing our cultural identity much as Europe has, and shaping our Congress around non-citizens, many of them illegal, does indeed advance that cultural disintegration, just as Mr. Lanyard says. JD is either missing the point or just slamming it down.

So let us address the problem, which is real and pressing, and not be scared away by bullying tactics like JD's. If we don't address the problem, these supposedly united states may someday come unglued, the Constitution notwithstanding.


Gary said (August 26, 2010):

You wrote a good article, and it would have been nice to use the census to track illegal immigrants, but that has never been the purpose of a prior US Census. My primary concern is the number of "citizens" not counted.

I received a government notice that my US Census form would be mailed soon, and to hurry-up completing the form, but I never actually received a census form. After giving up hope of receiving the form, I went to the local library to ask about a census form, but the librarian stated that all census forms had been picked up by the census folks.

The librarian said a number of people had inquired about the census form, because they had not received one in the mail, but had been turned away because there were no forms available. She further stated that even she had never received a census form in the mail, and had absolutely refused to fill one out on her own at the library.

The librarian said the government had mailed her a notice that she would receive the census form, and the government had failed their promise, thus she refused to complete a form on her own. Attitudes are not good towards the government these days! So, it would seem that my family, and many other citizens, were not counted. Does that mean that some US Citizens do not exist?


Gary said (August 26, 2010):

You wrote a good article, and it would have been nice to use the census to track illegal immigrants, but that has never been the purpose of a prior US Census. My primary concern is the number of "citizens" not counted. I received a government notice that my US Census form would be mailed soon, and to hurry-up completing the form, but I never actually received a census form. After giving up hope of receiving the form, I went to the local library to ask about a census form, but the librarian stated that all census forms had been picked up by the census folks. The librarian said a number of people had inquired about the census form, because they had not received one in the mail, but had been turned away because there were no forms available. She further stated that even she had never received a census form in the mail, and had absolutely refused to fill one out on her own at the library. The librarian said the government had mailed her a notice that she would receive the census form, and the government had failed their promise, thus she refused to complete a form on her own. Attitudes are not good towards the government these days! So, it would seem that my family, and many other citizens, were not counted. Does that mean that some US Citizens do not exist?


Mike said (August 26, 2010):

The long comments and article http://www.henrymakow.com/confessions_of_a_census_worker.html on the Constitution contain one basic flaw - the Constitution actually says "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. " In other words, the Census content is set by Congress, it says so in the Constitution.

While it might be nice to claim that "the government knows all this stuff" (and the Illuminati for idiot's sake?) in fact the agencies that are supposed to provide information instead of the Census actually get their information from the census and when alternate sources of information are used it often produces duplicate erroneous information - I have seen addresses that are next to each other being shown across the street from where they are. And there are many citizens who don't file taxes.

I worked for the Census also.


Christopher said (August 25, 2010):

Great points made by Andrew. There is another angle to look at also.

Whether you consider the claims of the conspiracy theorists (not meant in a derogatory way), the consumer data mining industry or the US Postal Service, it is obvious that the census is redundant at worst or should be much easier to perform. Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service also have massively accurate data. The US Postal Service in a national emergency can be asked to give a listing of every person in an area (This planning has been documented.). Whether it be through consumer credit reporting agencies or marketing data an amazing amount is know about all of the US citizens. Consequently, the US Census is a requirement but its methods and reasons for said are up for discussion. They could better implement the census by verifying data already on file and purchased from other sources. This would require quite an admission, not likely.

By accident or design the census serves to perpetuate the lie that the government does not really know everything about us. There is still a large portion of the American public that does not see the evil in the system; they are very juvenile.

Also, it is a bureaucracy that serves to justify and expand its budget.

Maybe there is a tacit admission that legal citizenship does not matter. I think that they do not want to open up the can of worms if they dared to inquire about citizenship on the forms or during interviews or cross referenced it with current data. Another thing about government bureaucracy and its workers is that they don’t like to make their jobs any harder.

It just gets hard for the rest of us.


JD said (August 25, 2010):

Henry, I read the article you posted about the US Census, whining that it didn't ask about citizenship. I almost rolled off my chair laughing at this article.

The author doesn't know a damn thing about history or the US Constitution.

The purpose of the census, the author does understand, is fundamentally to ascertain representation in the House. But after this, he goes off the deep end.

He assumes that representation is based on the number of citizens living in a State.

It never has been based on citizenship. It has always been based on _residents_. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, bases representation on " the whole number of persons in each State", not on "citizens". The original text of the constitution based it on the number of "Free Persons". Art. I, Sec. 2.

He needs to read about the "Three-fifths Compromise". A major battle in the Constitutional Convention was about how to handle Black slaves in fixing the representation of slaves in the House. The Slave States wanted all of them counted to increase their representation. They sure weren't citizens, but they surely were persons residing in the states involved. The Northern states ultimately compromised, to count the slaves as 3/5 of a resident. Nobody cared much about Indians, and so they were not counted unless they were taxed, but if they were taxed, they were counted without regard to citizenship. House representation never had anything to do with citizenship.

In fact, the notion of "citizenship" of the United States was pretty hazy at that time; what really mattered was citizenship of a State. The two were not the same for most of US History. My own German immigrant ancestors were allowed to vote in Wisconsin elections while formally citizens of Bavaria under the Wisconsin Constitution during the Nineteenth Century. Other states similarly granted state citizenship rights to residents who were citizens or subjects of another country. Eventually, all of the states that permitted this amended their constitutions to take away the voting rights granted to residents, which functionally gave them state citizenship.

US Citizenship was most remarkably determined finally by the Fourteenth Amendment which declared that all persons born in this country shall be citizens. The text of the constitution provided that people eligible to vote for representatives in the "most numerous" branch of the state legislature were eligible to vote for a representative in the House in Article I. That provision still stands. A state is still free to permit its residents to become state citizens and to permit them to vote in both state elections and congressional elections. If California decided to do that, there is nothing the rest of the country could do about it short of amending the Constitution.

Of course, at that time, no one voted for US Senators. They were selected by the State legislatures until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

The only mandatory purpose of a census is to determine the number of residents in a state, pure and simple. Citizenship has nothing to do with that mandatory purpose. His whining that citizenship should be asked about is worthy of consideration, but the fact that citizenship is not presently asked about does not render it "unconstitutional". Citizenship of a state's residents has nothing to do with a state's entitlement to representation in the House. We are an immigrant country, we have always been an immigrant country, and we have always based House representation on the number of free residents, regardless of immigration status, and in past times, we have allowed resident non-citizens to actually vote for those representatives.

The article, its premises, and its conclusions are just absurd jingoism displaying ignorance of simple and fundamental constitutional principles. His opinion is way, far and away, outside the American political tradition as reflected in its constitution, history, and laws.



Tony said (August 25, 2010):

I answered only the first question of the census. The one that is lawful to ask. Then I mailed the form. One day about a month later I came home from work and a woman was parked in my driveway. When she got out of her car with a clipboard and a big smile I knew why she was there.

Told her she was only entitled to know how many people lived on the property and she already had the answer. After a few pleasantries (the smile was glued on) she began to leave then said "Oh, I need your name" to which I answered that she was not entitled to my name and she left. Have heard nothing since.

But this year I understand that they took a satellite positioning reading of everyone's property which is totally unlawful but impossible to prevent when you are not at home. Even if you were at home it would be "an act of violence" to prevent it.

This government has completely forgotten - or more likely just ignores - that it is the servant of the people by law, not the other way around. Only determined action by the people themselves will change it now. This means an amount of bloodshed.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at