US Census Counted Everyone as Citizens
August 24, 2010
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?
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.