The almighty fuss over a citizenship question in the census indicates that it should be asked.
The administration says it needs the question to administer the Voting Rights Act properly. Opponents counter that President Trump really wants to scare brown voters away and, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi outrageously framed it, “make America white again.” To which it is retorted that Democrats want open borders and mass immigration by indigent people. Chief Justice John Roberts confused the issue by saying the administration’s argument was “reasonable” and “reasonably made” but also that the pro-question case was “contrived.”
So the opposing camps have proceeded through Shakespeare’s seven-stage taxonomy of argument, skipping over “retort courteous” and sallying through “reply churlish,” and “countercheck quarrelsome” to “lie direct” at warp speed, as is customary.
But here’s the thing: We wouldn’t be arguing about this if unchecked illegal immigration were not the defining dispute of today’s politics. The fact that there are uncounted millions of foreigners in America — I’m a foreigner, but I’ve been counted — makes it obvious they should be tallied so citizens have a better idea of the issue’s parameters. There’s a sense that we’re arguing in self-imposed darkness. Let’s cast light on the subject and see what’s what.
On its face, it’s ludicrous that the census doesn’t always ask if respondents are American. I suspect most people vaguely assume that’s what the census is for, and don’t object at all. It has asked about race, ancestry, education, health, and many other intrusive matters not required by the Constitution. I don’t buy the suggestion that counting citizens is bad because immigrants would be scared to answer and thus end up being underrepresented. Citizenship or residency imposes civic duties — filing a tax return comes to mind — and returning a completed census is one of them. If you won’t do that for the nation you call home, you shouldn’t be here.
Speaking of foreigners, we feature one on the cover this week. Boris Johnson, Britain’s incoming prime minister (and a Fleet Street colleague of mine), will be installed at No. 10 Downing St. this month. He’s been compared with Trump, and although there are huge differences, there are also similarities. Reporter Rob Crilly trailed Boris on the hustings and ponders whether the tattered “special relationship” might be repaired when another norm-smasher is on the other end of it.
Other great reads include Grant Addison’s analysis of a problem faced by the Heterodox Academy, Dan Hannan’s case for optimism despite punditry suggesting the end is nigh, and Melissa Langsam Braunstein’s finding that the passive revolt against vaccinations is reaching dangerous levels.
Oh, and it’s 50 years since man — American men — first walked on the moon. Quin Hillyer celebrates this wondrous achievement in Your Land.
