One of the biggest judicial defeats for the Constitution and the integrity of our electoral system came when Justice Roberts decided to switch his vote on the census case as part of some unknown and underhanded court deal. The result, bizarrely, blocked a citizenship question on the census. If there were ever solid grounds for kicking judicial supremacism in its gut, this was the hour.
But instead there are efforts to get at the data.
The Department of Homeland Security is agreeing to share citizenship information with the U.S. Census Bureau as part of President Donald Trump’s order to collect data on who is a citizen following the Supreme Court’s rejection of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form.
Trump’s order is being challenged in federal court, but meanwhile the Department of Homeland Security two weeks ago announced the agreement in a report. It said the agency would share administrative records to help the Census Bureau determine the number of citizens and non-citizens in the U.S., as well as the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally.
Among the information Homeland Security will provide is a person’s alien identification number, country of birth and date of naturalization or naturalization application. The department is awaiting word on whether it will be allowed to release information on asylum and refugee applicants, which typically is prohibited from being disclosed.
The government has the data. It has gobs of data on everyone. But that data can’t be used because of all the political firewalls protecting certain political agendas. At the top of the list is the way that fake districts filled with non-citizens are created to build Democrat power.
Will this approach work? I’m skeptical. And court action is all but inevitable.
As part of the order, the U.S. Census Bureau has asked state drivers’ license bureaus for records, but so far only Nebraska has agreed to cooperate.
Much like the refugee betrayals, few Republican states are actually willing to stand up for Americans and for the rule of law.
Leave a Reply