By Jim Waltz | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
This summer’s news reported in the media is focused on the fierce opposition to the deportation of illegal immigrants. The persistent rioting drains federal and state resources from their duty to uphold the law, including the removal of illegal immigrants present in our country.
Removing residents from any locale undermines the left’s effort to alter future elections by tampering with the upcoming census.
The real purpose of the left’s open border advocacy is not rooted in humanitarianism (for example, Martha’s Vineyard relocated about 50 immigrants, declaring their lack of resources—yet they can still accommodate some 150,000 paying tourists annually). It is an attempt to affect our Constitutional right to a census, the next to occur in 2030.
Our Constitution established that the number of representatives and the apportionment of taxes among the states be based upon a pure head count, rather than a count of legal citizens or even a census of property owners.
The founders missed the boat on this one, and the left is making every effort to allow anyone to enter or remain in the country before 2030.
In my opinion, the left is convinced that illegal immigrants will increase the population count for apportionment purposes and then be counted on to vote for Democrats now and forevermore.
So, beginning this summer and throughout 2029, they will fight and do everything in their power to obstruct, stall, or interfere with the deportation of illegal immigrants within our country.
The census is the mechanical means by which the United States apportions congressional representatives and taxation among the states. While the founders were busy debating how to count the number of slaves, Indians, and women in this country, they failed to clarify whether the census should count only legal citizens and permanent residents within a state.
Clearly, they did not intend to count any Tom, Dick, or Harriet who entered via an open border before the census and then may leave or be deported afterward.
The founders, I submit, couldn’t imagine that a sovereign country—one that had just fought for its independence and included in its Constitution the right to determine laws concerning immigration—would count in its census anyone who had gained illegal entry.
At the turn of the last century, immigrants had to declare or prove, prior to gaining entry, their identity, place of origin, occupation, destination, and whether they had family or contacts in the U.S. They had to be of good health, be moderately literate, and prove they would not be a public burden (e.g., had cash or access to cash—hence children without means or parents were often returned to their country of origin).
Nor were persons allowed entry if they were declared immoral or had a criminal record, based on current laws (definitions that have varied over time).
It is even more absurd that the left wants to grant legal due process to illegal immigrants who are gaming the system, given that we already fund and provide generous access to citizenship at ports of entry.
We also pay many salaries to Homeland Security and task them with the duty to remove illegal immigrants forthwith.
If we (or power-mad judges) grant due process to migrants who fail to seek legal access, isn’t that denying due process to those migrants who follow the legal process to gain entry—and to the existing citizens of this country?
Even if you are born within our borders following your mother’s illegal entry (thus natural born), the newborn can still leave with the deported parent, or the parent can abandon the newborn locally—as every state allows protection for newborns, who can then be placed for adoption.
Another legal obstacle being litigated is the right to a hearing, even if the migrant fails to appear at a previously scheduled hearing or did appear and was ordered deported. Hearings to gain access should be granted or held prior to gaining entry. Otherwise, the illegal entry de facto makes that a historically denied entry.
The purpose of the census is to enumerate, or count, the number of people—legal residents if not citizens—in each state to decide how many representatives each state will have (and for apportionment of taxes). How to actually perform the census has been relegated to Congress through the enactment of laws (the Bureau of the Census under the Department of Commerce, actually).
Historically, our government sends out a written census packet to residences each decade and may even send a census taker to your location, based—I surmise—on some statistical algorithm, which makes it about as dependable as a weather report.
Our Constitution demands more of us, and “[w]e the People” have basic duties—one of which is to stand up and be counted.
Census-taking is far from new. By the year 6 B.C., the Romans had figured out how to take a proper census—we all should be familiar with the Nazareth vs. Bethlehem event. Everyone in a declared locality had to appear before a magistrate to be counted and register who they were and where they lived or were residing.
In the 21st century, we have a registrar already in place in every county in this country and a Social Security system that tracks births and deaths.
While the Republicans have some control, why not enact laws to fund and require everyone who wants to be counted to appear at the registrar of their county (no mail-ins allowed), sign in, answer a few questions with proof of identity—and voilà, we have a new head count?
If you do not appear, consider yourself unrepresented.
This type of census would fit well under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
There is no need to make this a one-day event such as for voting. Perhaps make it a three-month process, with allowances for soldiers, prisoners, and persons with a guardian or under a certain age—proof of citizenship required. No one gets to represent another person without proof of citizenship and proof they are alive. Get rid of the long, written census forms that assume a certain level of literacy—make it simple.
And in the United States, immigrants applying for naturalization (citizenship) must prove an ability to read, write, and speak basic English, unless they qualify for an exemption. This requirement is part of the naturalization process overseen by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
For each census, perhaps we should consider giving all legal citizens a new national identification number to replace the Social Security number, which has outlived its usefulness. My original SSN officially states on its face: “FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES—NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION.”
New universal identity numbers would reduce identity theft. I suggest the D.O.G.E. team be engaged to make our identification more secure and integrated into the newly implemented government software.
As to Congress—there is time to update and clarify this process. Statistical representation is not what the Constitution called for, nor is it needed.
Congress members themselves will benefit, as they already must compete for political support, and should recognize we need no more representatives than are absolutely required under our Constitution.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.