Sen. Barbara Boxer meddling with census count of illegal immigrants and immigration enforcement
You know, with the way the Iraq War is going on, the state of our economy, scandals, and what not, the current polls show the Democrats gaining more seats in Congress and winning the presidency in 2008.
They now want to meddle with the 2010 Census and the job of the ICE/DHS.
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has attached an amendment to the current spending bill on the Senate floor. The amendment includes a Sense of the Senate clause which reads:
"It is the sense of the Senate that as part of the effort to count all persons physically in the United States during the 2010 Census, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau of the Department of Homeland Security should limit aggressive enforcement of federal immigration laws to promote full participation by non-citizens in the census."
In the past, illegal aliens have been included in the census. Now why would Boxer attempt to limit the actions of the ICE/DHS? Perhaps the proximity of the 2010 Census because it would change the number of Congressional seats allocated to the states. According to a U. Conn study, states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida could see their House delegation increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants. California and New Jersey would see no loss of seats, but New York, Illinois, and Ohio may lose a seat or two.
It is pretty weird since illegals cannot vote in our state and federal elections. The population census is generally used for Congressional seat allocation, federal funding, and other purposes.
How can this really help the Democrats? Even if you get a seat added to Arizona, Florida, and Texas, the rearrangement will still need to go through that particular state legislature, approved by the courts, then you would need to find the right candidate that can win that extra seat for your party.
Question: Is Boxer really afraid of California losing a seat? I would bet that California would get another one in the next census.
Is this an attempt to get those states with Democratic legislatures to enact a more perfect gerrymandering scheme to guarantee seats for the liberals?
Hmmmm.
Comments
Posted by:
Posted on: October 9, 2007 11:02 AM
Or is it a call for having an accurate census?
As is clearly stated in the document, it is clear that the Census Bureau is required to count both citizens and non-citizens.
Also clear, limiting enforcement has seemed to be a pretty standard practice since 1980!
As someone involved in population type research, I know first hand that if you want an accurate picture of the nation, you have to make sure you have good participation from your all of your potential respondents. Because the population of concern is all people living in the United States, rather than exclusively US citizens, you want to make sure that individuals are not systematically excluded (systematic bias is particularly damaging in this type of research).
If there is a perception that the US Census is in cohuts with ICE, you will systematically bias your data by ensuring large segments of the population are not participating.
Poor data in this group could have effects not only for the larger population, but also for programs designed to curb immigration or get individuals on the path to citizenship. With no illegal representation, you wouldn't be able to say "see our fence is working, since the last census we have seen a drop in the number of illegals living in this country."
If the law states that representation in congress, electoral votes, etc, is determined by the total population, wouldn't you want the count to be as accurate as possible? If that is the law, I know I would. If YOU think it that this population should not be counted, perhaps you should lobby for a change. I would steer clear of counting illegals as 2/3rds a person, it hasn't gone over well in the past.
Lastly, maybe, just maybe, the Democrats aren't concerned with helping themselves, but rather that the bureau such as the census can do the jobs which are paid for by tax dollars. I would also note, they are not advocating that these ICE/homeland security stop doing their job, but rather to limit "aggressive enforcement" while the census is being conducted.
Posted by: James (Author)
Posted on: October 9, 2007 11:19 AM
True enough. It's just that Boxer never introduced a similar amendment before, or maybe she did for the 2000 census, but I haven't researched that far back yet.
It also seems unethical to gain a congressional seat for your state when the people responsible for the population gain are not eligible to vote.
In terms of "aggressive enforcement," if it were hundreds of raids on a daily basis, that's aggressive. If you are talking about a raid or two per month, then it's considered to be limited. Of course, the meaning is left to the bureaucratic boys down in DC.
Posted by:
Posted on: October 9, 2007 11:40 AM
So, next question James...how is all of this being done "illegally?"
Maybe Boxer didn't have to introduce an amendment before because those other agencies agreed that an accurate vote was in the best interest of everyone.
Non-registered voters are also ineligible to vote, as are children. Should we not count them in the census or in terms of seats? Again, if the law states seats are based on the total population rather than eligible voters, than the it sounds like the law is unethical. Advocate for a change the law than.
Stopping aggressive policies was also being advocated by the Census Bureau itself. Sounds like Ms. Boxer was listening to the experts in this matter and trying to our tax dollars are spent doing things the right way.
"Census officials had planned to speak with immigration agents about curbing enforcement during the population count, the Census Bureau's second-ranking official said in an interview earlier this week.
Raids during the population count would make an already distrustful group even less likely to cooperate with government workers who are supposed to include them in the headcount, Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite had said. "
source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-17-census-raids_N.htm
Posted by: James (Author)
Posted on: October 9, 2007 12:02 PM
The census takers have always been counting the population regardless of their citizenship status. I guess Boxer was afraid the federal government would ramp up immigration raids to scare them away, though it would seem no one was really in a rush.
However, it should not curtail normal enforcement operations. If you know a business employing illegal workers, then something must be done.
Posted by:
Posted on: October 9, 2007 12:27 PM
You didn't answer my question, how is Boxer doing this illegally?
I should hope census takers have always been counting population regardless of status. It is the duty they are charged with. I don't think "Boxer" was afraid they would ramp up immigration raids, but was in fact advocating on behalf of the bureau. I honestly believe the Census knows what it is doing. Statements that start of with "I guess" sound like speculation to me, not based in fact.
Also, what would be the reason for the government to "ramp up immigration raids to scare them away?" during the Census. If what you say is true (which I contend is not), and Democrats have so much to gain from an accurate count, wouldn't it be unethical to utilize ICE/homeland security to insure a low count. In other words, to use these entities for political gain.
"However, it should not curtail normal enforcement operations. If you know a business employing illegal workers, then something must be done."
An accurate count of individuals living in this country illegally would allow us to know the degree to which some of these policies and practices were working.
Than again, science, reason, and logic have never been strongly advocated by your side argument.
Posted by: James (Author)
Posted on: October 9, 2007 01:14 PM
Boxer is using political maneuvering to interfere with the duties and actions of our immigration authorities. The census takers can go ahead and count all they want, but it does not mean that the ICE/Homeland Security should step back and wait until the 2010 census is completed. Fine, I should not say illegal in this case, it's more of interfering with our enforcement authorities.
Isn't it possible for Boxer to play on the fear card that the federal government will try to step up immigration raids to deter illegals from the census volunteers? Anyone can play that game. Guess, believe, think.
How can it be unethical for ICE/DHS to ensure a low count? Their job and duty is to remove persons that do not possess the proper documentation or citizenship to stay in this country.
If needed, the courts would have to decide whether the constitutional requirement for the Census overrides the enforcement ability of our immigration and homeland security authorities.
As for non-registered voters, it's their individual choice whether they want to participate and vote for their elected officials, but at least they are legal citizens.
Children, unless you are telling me that a five-year old knows who to vote for. Let me know when they change the voting age to below 10.
Folks can speculate that this would benefit the Democrats. Who knows if Hillary got elected President, she will pursue amnesty for all of them, then she got all those voters in her pocket.
Where's the science?
Posted by:
Posted on: October 9, 2007 01:56 PM
How is it interfering? She is asking. The sense of the Senate would not bind these groups in anyway. It would seem "illegal" to me not to count these individuals when determining such important things as seats, funding, etc.
To answer your question on how it would be unethical:
It would be unethical if it were for political gain.
Clearly the ultimate goal of these groups is to get illegals out of the country. However, even the most aggressive campaigns would not be successful in getting every illegal alien out, especially by 2010.
The low counts in this case would not be due to these entities doing their jobs well, but instead a climate of fear that deterred illegal aliens to participate in the census. There is a big difference between actually lowering the number of of illegals and not counting them.
In other words, a more aggressive campaign would lower the number of immigrants, but much of that change would be due to non-participation rather than actual change. Again, the numbers would be lower through systematic bias rather than any success of the ICE/Homeland Security.
If a more aggressive campaign occurred during the census and ordered by say a Bush administration official, by your own logic, it would serve to benefit Republicans. Thus the political gain component.
Regarding non-registered voters and children, if you read what was written, you would see I was not advocating that children vote, or we make voting mandatory. Instead, that both children and non-registered voters do(and should)are counted when it comes to the census.
If you think that seats, funding, etc, should only count for those voting, or citizen, perhaps you should advocate changing the election laws on how seats are determined.
Doing science well is exactly what Boxer and the Census are trying to do. They are trying to minimize bias in order to get accurate counts of people living in this country.