facebook icon facebook icon facebook icon
  • About
  • ADS
  • Masthead
    • Editorial Board
  • Submission
  • Subscribe
The Wellesley News -
  • News
    • Contract ratified by Wellesley’s Maintenance and Service Employees Union
      Contract ratified by Wellesley’s Maintenance and Service Employees Union
    • News in Brief
      News in Brief
    • Wellesley adapts to end of race conscious admissions
      Wellesley adapts to end of race conscious admissions
    • Senate Report
    • News in Brief
  • Features
    • Professor Spotlight: Dr. Faisal Ahmed
      Professor Spotlight: Dr. Faisal Ahmed
    • Spotlight: New Professor Kathryn Winner
      Spotlight: New Professor Kathryn Winner
    • Spotlight: New Professor Lucia Nhamo ’11
      Spotlight: New Professor Lucia Nhamo ’11
    • Humans of Wellesley
    • Archives
  • Opinions
    • France’s Abaya Ban Unveils Its Own Misogyny
      France’s Abaya Ban Unveils Its Own Misogyny
    • Editorial: In defense of affirmative action
      Editorial: In defense of affirmative action
    • I am an NCAA champion: we should end college recruiting
      I am an NCAA champion: we should end college recruiting
    • Editorials
    • Letters to Editors
  • Arts
    • The SAG-AFTRA and WGA Strikes: What’s happening in Hollywood?
      The SAG-AFTRA and WGA Strikes: What’s happening in Hollywood?
    • Digging into Hozier’s Unreal Unearth: “De Selby (Part 1)” and the Population of Loss
      Digging into Hozier’s Unreal Unearth: “De Selby (Part 1)” and the Population of Loss
    • Summer Releases to Help Usher in Fall
      Summer Releases to Help Usher in Fall
  • Sports
    • Gauff and Richardson Shatter Expectations
      Gauff and Richardson Shatter Expectations
    • Student Athlete of the Month: Kennedy Mayo
      Student Athlete of the Month: Kennedy Mayo
    • No image
      What even is a BORG and why does it matter?
  • Multimedia
    • Photo of the Week
      Photo of the Week
    • “Stronger Together” Rally with Chelsea Clinton
      “Stronger Together” Rally with Chelsea Clinton
    • College Government Vice President 2016 End of the Year Report
      College Government Vice President 2016 End of the Year Report
    • Podcasts
    • The Wellesley Snooze
  • Projects
      • The News in Conversation
    • About
      • Contact
      • Join the News
      • Masthead
      • Editorial Board
    By Tabitha Wilson OpinionsApril 11, 2018

    The census cannot include a question about citizenship without compromising its integrity

    Photo Courtesy of The US Department of Commerce

    A few weeks ago, the Department of Commerce announced that it would be including a new question on the 2020 census inquiring about U.S. citizenship. Many liberal states were immediately outraged, fearing that the number of respondents to the census would decrease and ultimately result in less political representation and federal funding. Others felt that adding the question during the Trump administration’s tenure was politicizing an apolitical document. Those in favor of adding the question argue that we need a more accurate number of how many immigrants are in the country to better inform government policy. While I do believe that getting a more accurate estimate of the number of immigrants in the country would help us better provide resources to them, we must also realize the political and potential legal implications of putting such a question on the census. Those who are living in fear because of their immigration status or the status of those in their household might choose not to participate in the census. In addition, those who do respond might end up being in danger of deportation or incarceration.

    Although the Census Bureau itself has no official political agenda, it is ultimately compliant with the policies of law enforcement agencies. In 2004, the New York Times reported that the Census Bureau turned over information to the Department of Homeland Security regarding the concentration of ArabAmericans in certain zip codes following the 9/11 attacks. Decades before, it was also involved in providing information that led to the internment of JapaneseAmericans during World War II. The Census Bureau could be asked to report its information regarding which zip codes have a higher reported rate of undocumented immigrants, and these areas could be subject to an increase in policing and deportations. Given the history of the census and how its data has been used to target particular groups, it is naive to argue that these statistics would only be going towards making a more accurate governmental policy. As long as the Trump administration spews hatred and ignorance about undocumented immigrants, answering this question would have no real benefit for the country. At best, the numbers provided would achieve more accurate congressional representation in states with a larger immigrant community. At worst, certain communities would face increased persecution.

    Adding this question to the census would also be problematic with regard to race. In conjunction with the race and ethnicity question posed at the top of the form, one would easily be able to discern how many immigrants are of a certain race or ethnicity. Considering Trump’s comment about immigrants from “shithole countries,” these immigrants could perhaps be more targeted and face another layer of discrimination. Since the general public is unaware of the extent to which census data is shared, it would be best if this data were not collected at all.

    Collecting this information could also lead to federalist issues between federal and local governments. The results of the additional census question could justify an increased presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in places that have already designated themselves as sanctuary cities, such as New York City and Los Angeles. Sanctuary cities do not comply with federal immigration laws nor do they dedicate resources to apprehending and deporting undocumented immigrants. An increased ICE presence would also mean designating a larger portion of the federal budget to these controversial immigration efforts.

    The announcement of the citizenship question forces us to consider the amount of information that we are comfortable sharing with our government. The officiality of the census makes people more or less compelled to complete it. The census allows us to learn more about important issues facing our nation, like the racial and gender disparity in income. But the census simultaneously endangers some of our most vulnerable communities by providing their data to law enforcement agencies. While data collection can be useful in shaping policies and congressional representation, we must also be cognizant of its dangers. The Census Bureau should no longer be required to provide its data to law enforcement in regards to race or immigration status. The Census Bureau should also have a more democratic approach to adding questions so that the census doesn’t become politicized.

    Share on

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • Google +
    • LinkedIn
    • Email
    Previous articleMalaysian government abuses the meaning of “Fake News”
    Next articleThe Second Amendment cannot be repealed until we redefine freedom in America

    You may also like

    France’s Abaya Ban Unveils Its Own Misogyny

    Editorial: In defense of affirmative action

    I am an NCAA champion: we should end college recruiting

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    The Wellesley News

      SECTIONS

    • News
    • Features
    • Opinions
    • Arts
    • Sports
    • Multimedia
    • Projects
    • About

      ABOUT

    • Contact
    • Join the News
    • Masthead
    • Editorial Board

      RESOURCES

    • Advertising
    • Submission
    • Subscribe

      CONTACT US

    • Contact
    COPYRIGHT © 2023 THE WELLESLEY NEWS