MAGA Navy Seal HUMILIATES hysterical Democrat right to her face, she regrets trying this

The Census Clash: Feelings vs. Facts in the Citizenship Question Debate

The exchange between the Democratic Congresswoman and Republican Representatives Eli Crane and Andy Biggs exposed the fundamental political tension surrounding the inclusion of a citizenship question on the U.S. Census. The debate centered on the interplay between the practical consequences of immigration enforcement, the constitutional mandate for the Census, and the legal limits placed on federal agencies.

The Congresswoman argued that adding a citizenship question would scare people in mixed-status families, leading to a significant undercount that would jeopardize fair representation and adequate state funding. She framed the opposition to the question as a fight for people who are being “rounded up on the streets,” asserting that Democrats care about every person living in the country.

In sharp response, Representatives Crane and Biggs argued that the Democratic opposition was an attempt to “rig elections.” They asserted that counting non-citizens for the purpose of congressional apportionment unfairly awards representatives and electoral power to areas with high illegal immigration.

Constitutional and Legal Arguments

The Republican counter-arguments focused heavily on the legality and constitutional permissibility of the citizenship question, referencing the 2019 Supreme Court case, Department of Commerce v. New York.

The Supreme Court Ruling: As Representative Biggs correctly noted, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the Constitution allows the Secretary of Commerce to include a citizenship question on the Census. The question itself was deemed constitutionally appropriate.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA): However, the Court ultimately blocked the Trump administration from adding the question to the 2020 Census at that time. The reason was not the question itself, but the way the Commerce Department justified the addition. The Court found the official rationale—to obtain better data to enforce the Voting Rights Act—was “contrived” and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. The APA requires agencies to provide a reasoned explanation for their actions and follow established procedures.

The Enumeration Clause: The Constitution mandates an “actual enumeration” of all “persons” in each state for the purpose of apportionment. The key conflict lies in whether the count for apportionment should include all residents (citizens and non-citizens) or only citizens. The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed the question, but the political impact remains—citizenship data influences political power and resource allocation.

The Border and Constitutional Duty

Representative Crane introduced the argument of constitutional duty regarding border security.

Article IV, Section 4: Crane cited Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to “protect each [State] against Invasion.” He argued that the previous administration’s policies failed this duty by allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the country, exacerbating the need to identify citizenship in the Census.

The Voting Argument: Crane also repeatedly asserted that the Democrats’ aim was to allow illegal aliens to vote, stating that Democrats “try and block every single effort that we make in this house to stop illegal aliens from voting.” Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

The Political Tension: Apportionment and Gerrymandering

At the core of the debate is the political weight of the Census:

Congressional Apportionment: The total population count from the Census is used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. If the count includes millions of non-citizens (as it currently does under the Constitutional mandate to count “persons”), states with large non-citizen populations gain a disproportionate number of Congressional seats and, consequently, electoral votes.

Gerrymandering: The speaker later argued that the dispute is tied to gerrymandering, where district lines are drawn to favor one political party. He asserted that counting non-citizens in specific areas overweights the representation of those areas, potentially benefiting the Democratic party’s electoral strength in those districts, despite the fact that non-citizens cannot legally vote in federal elections.