Tyler Cowen has a recent column that advocates asking a citizenship question on the 2020 census. I don’t find his argument to be persuasive, for several reasons.
Tyler does acknowledge that asking this question will make the census less accurate in estimating total population, but sees even bigger costs from not asking the question:
Not asking about citizenship seems to signify an attitude toward immigrants something like this: Get them in and across the border, their status may be mixed and their existence may be furtive, and let’s not talk too openly about what is going on, and later we will try to get all of them citizenship. Given the current disagreement between the two parties on immigration questions, that may well be the only way of getting more immigrants into the U.S., which I hold to be a desirable goal. But that is a dangerous choice of political turf, and it may not help the pro-immigration cause in the longer run.
That’s certainly not my view. An acquaintance of mine is a legal resident who is not a citizen and doesn’t plan to ever become one. I have no hidden agenda to get him citizenship. Regarding illegal residents, I’d be happy with an amnesty that allowed them to stay as permanent resident non-citizens.
I’m a philosophical pragmatist, so if someone could show me that there were substantial benefits to making the census slightly less accurate, I’d be willing to listen. But exactly what are the benefits from a citizenship count? I don’t see them. The US Constitution asks very little of the federal government. (It already does far more than the founders thought appropriate.) It doesn’t seem too much to ask to try to carry out one of the government’s few constitutional duties as accurately as possible.
Let’s say I’m wrong, and that the benefits from an accurate citizenship count are substantial. Even then I’d oppose asking the citizenship question on the census form. Instead I’d instruct the Census Bureau to use some other method to estimate the total number of US citizens. That’s because a census question of citizenship won’t just lead to an undercount of total population, it is likely to lead to a relatively inaccurate measure of the share of the population that are non-citizens. Thus a citizenship question on the US census is actually likely to lead to a less accurate estimate of the total number of US non-citizens than some other estimation method.
Much of Tyler’s essay glosses over the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Instead, the discussion either implicitly or explicitly centers on the distinction between legal residents and illegal residents. But this sort of census question would tell us almost nothing about that issue that we do not already know. Consider:
1. Non-citizens are composed of two groups, legal residents and non-legal residents.
2. This question would not discriminate between these two groups.
3. Illegal residents are almost certainly much less likely to respond to this question than legal residents.
Thus suppose there are 12 million people who tell the census that they are not citizens. What does that tell us about the number of illegal residents? The government currently estimates that there are about 10.5 million illegal residents in America. So would that 12 million figure imply 10.5 million illegals and 1.5 million legals? Or would it indicate that only 2 million illegals dared respond, and the other 10 million responses were legal non-citizens? I have no idea.
Perhaps the census could somehow produce a fairly accurate estimate of legal non-citizens, I don’t know. But even in that case the estimate of total non-citizens (which includes legal and non-legal residents), is likely to be highly inaccurate because of illegals being undercounted. If you asked me to produce the most accurate estimate of citizens that I could come up with, it would be the census estimate of total population (including the Census Bureau’s figure for the estimated undercount), minus the government’s estimate of legal non-citizens, minus 10.5 million. That would likely be far more accurate than anything that comes out of a census citizenship question.
It seems to me that people who worry that there is too much immigration (a group that does not include Tyler) want to have it both ways. They hint that we need this sort of question because illegal immigration is a big problem, and yet they don’t call for the appropriate question on the census, “Are you an illegal?” because they don’t want to be laughed at. So instead they ask about citizenship, implying that this somehow addresses the public policy issue of illegal immigration. It doesn’t.
I’m reasonably satisfied with the government estimate of 10.5 million illegals in America. I’m sure it’s not exactly right, but it’s also obviously true that the number is much more than 1 or 2 million and much less than 30 or 40 million. It’s a plausible sounding number. And no census question will get us closer to the truth.
If there are 320 million legal residents, then obviously the vast majority are citizens and a small proportion are non-citizens with green cards or visas to study or work here, etc. I don’t feel any great urge to know the share of legal residents that are non-citizens, but if people really wish to know this information then I’d suggest using some sort of statistical study that does not make screw up one of the government’s few constitutional duties, an accurate headcount of the total population.
It’s possible that I misread Tyler’s argument. It seems to me that he’s saying that it looks bad when the Democrats oppose this question. It looks as if they are ashamed to admit that there are lots of illegals, and that they (the Democrats) want them to be able to stay here legally via some form of amnesty. In fact, it looks more like some Republicans wish the Constitution did not consider total population when allocating political representation (at the federal level), rather only legal population, or citizens. And it looks like they are trying to use this question to push the population count closer to what it would be if the Constitution were written in the way they preferred.
No doubt many conservatives who disagree with me will contest the way I characterize their motives. But then so would the Democrats regarding Tyler’s characterization. And again, if you ask, “Which of the two parties seems to be advocating a procedure that will produce the most accurate count of the sort that America’s founders asked for?”, I’d have to say the Democrats. Yes, an accurate count works in their favor politically, so I’m certainly not suggesting pure motives on either side. Rather I’m claiming that the Democratic position seems to align better with the original intent of the Constitution’s framers. And which group is supposed to believe in original intent?
PS. If we assume that it takes 10 seconds to respond to this question, then it will waste perhaps 20 million minutes of time.
PPS. AFAIK, the census currently has pretty good estimates of total population. If I recall correctly, they use various statistical techniques to estimate the undercount in specific areas, and then extrapolate to get a national undercount estimate. I don’t believe those undercount estimates are used for re-apportionment, but they can be used by academics. Please correct me if this is inaccurate.
PPPS. Canada and Australia both ask this question, which seems appropriate given that rates of illegal immigration are low in both countries, and thus the population count would not be significantly affected.
PPPPS. This post does not consider the question of whether the Trump administration decision to ask this sort of question is constitutional, or the entirely different question of whether the Supreme Court was correct to send the issue back for further clarification. In this post I’ve also steered clear of the racial dimension to this question. Some would argue that there is a hidden agenda to reduce the political clout of minority voters, much as the old literacy tests were more about race than literacy. In my view, however, the argument for a citizenship question is quite weak even if you dismiss the notion that there is hidden racial bias in this decision.
PPPPPS. Can someone check more than one box?
READER COMMENTS
Jason
Jul 5 2019 at 8:47pm
I don’t like it because it’s self-certification. If the above wording is correct, I would choose “born abroad to citizen parents” (a la John McCain or Ted Cruz) but I personally have no verification of my parents citizenship nor do I personally know if I could withstand an audit, although I assume so (US passport, FS-240). Arguably, the govt is the entity that decides if I’m a citizen, not me.
If absolutely coerced to respond, I am Spartacus until you prove I am not.
nobody.really
Jul 11 2019 at 5:40pm
I’d have to check “Born to broad U.S. citizen parent or parents.”
Alan Goldhammer
Jul 5 2019 at 9:00pm
It’s a far better use of time and money to figure out how to help the troubled Central American countries whose citizens are making this desperate trek through Mexico to seek asylum here. Get those countries economies figured out and help the people stay at home and prosper.
john hare
Jul 6 2019 at 5:14am
I think that is a noble goal, If there is a realistic plan for implementation. In helping individuals I have concluded that you can provide a road out, but can’t drag them out of dead end life styles. Or you can provide a job that they can use to move up, but you can’t make them give up the things that hold them down. Is it the same with countries?
Alan Goldhammer
Jul 6 2019 at 8:49am
This is a difficult question to answer. Clearly NAFTA has had an impact on the economy of Mexico in a positive direction. There is a lot of manufacturing going on there these days (my Honda H-RV was assembled in Mexico City) and I do not believe that there are many Mexican citizens among those seeking asylum in the US. I don’t know what the right approach is for El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala but something needs to be done.
Matthias Görgens
Jul 7 2019 at 7:31pm
Opening the rich economicies to the products, services and people of the poor economies would do a lot of good.
Also, open them to their capital. People need a dependable place to put their savings. But the rich world mostly seems ok with opening their capital markets.
There’s of course lots more the poor countries can do for themselves. But as already noted, you can’t for people to help themselves.
KG
Jul 6 2019 at 2:54pm
Although I agree that we should make the census as accurate as possible (and hence we shouldn’t ask questions which implicitly discourage participation), I also think it’s really unlikely the Democrats will win this fight in the long run. The question simply sounds too reasonable to be excluded. A naive poll of (probably uninformed) Americans finds something like 3:1 support in favor of asking the question. Trump’s loss in SC on the citizenship question was due to his own incompetence. If he simply told the truth about why he wants to include the question, then I believe he would have won the case. The courts could easily rule in favor of the question and find very little pushback except from the hyper-partisans in the beltway.
chris
Jul 8 2019 at 4:53pm
KG,
I believe the reason that the administration didn’t go with the true reasoning is that there is a parallel lawsuit that claims a racial bias. Key figures involved with the question are on record stating that the goal is to undercount non-whites. Because of that, they may win this case and lose the other. That is the bind they are currently in.
In a related note, I have no idea how people in the administration are not going to jail for lying to congress and the supreme court about the true motives and timeline for the question. It boggles my mind that Wilbur Ross is walking free after his performance in this whole thing. It similarly boggles my mind that the supreme court is essentially saying “you lied about your intent, but if you can come up with a better lie, we’re sold” (knowing that if the admin. can find the time to come up with a better intent, they also lied about the timeline for printing)
Benjamin Cole
Jul 6 2019 at 10:06pm
I wonder why population growth and immigration are regarded as positives in the US.
When I was a little boy, there was positive commentary about population growth (1950s-60s) vaguely in the context of the Cold War. I lived in L.A., and the powerful real estate community certainly wanted population growth locally. Population growth was right there with apple pie.
I suppose the Western expansion phase of US history needed immigration. There was lots of undeveloped land.
But now? Moreover, the US cannot even build housing or infrastructure. The inability to build housing and infrastructure appears permanent. The USC-Casden people say LA County has more-or-less maxed out on the number of legal housing units that can be built, given property zoning.
I used to think the Zero Population Growth people were misanthropes. They may be, but the policy may be correct given the political realities of the US.
So why ask people if they are in the US illegally, or not citizens?
I think policymaking needs an answer. For example, MIT-Yale says there are about 22 million illegal residents in the US, while Pew says about 11 million. Obvously, the private sector cannot come up with an answer. How much should be devoted to border security, if we do not even know the scope of the problem? How much to deporting people not in the US legally? How large should humane detention centers be?
Japan has a shrinking population, and housing is becoming more affordable there, and young people are just beginning to see real wage gains. (Of course, there are overlays on monetary policy and the ability to build in Tokyo that influence the situation).
Still, read this: The rent in Sapporo, a city with a shrinking population: “Monthly rent for 85 m2 (900 Sq.ft.) furnished accommodation in NORMAL area==¥73,681.
That’s about $676 a month.
Here is Los Angeles: “The median monthly rent for a one-bedroom unit in L.A. was $2,250 in June,”
Egads. I guess the typical resident of Sapporo has a higher living standard than the typical resident of Los Angeles, after paying rent. The measurement of per-capita incomes between nations often becomes meaningless, given housing rents.
From Bloomberg: “The U.S. may have double the number of undocumented immigrants as commonly estimated, according to a new study that has the potential to further fuel the debate over one of the nation’s most politically charged topics.
While the U.S. government and several outside groups have put the number of undocumented migrants at about 11 million or 12 million, the paper issued Friday by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale University gives a “conservative estimate” of 16.7 million in 2016, with an average simulation of 22.1 million.”
—30—
So, what is the purpose and value of immigration? Can the US accept immigrants if it will not build more housing and infrastructure? Are there any positives to a larger population?
Or, would the residents of the US be better off if the goal was slowing declining population?
I suspect so, given political realities.
Michael Pettengill
Jul 6 2019 at 11:00pm
Many towns are dying in the US, mostly in the rural areas that vote Republican and support Trump, due to loss of population. The population loss is driven by public policy of cost cutting: cut wages, cut taxes, cut spending.
This is true in California, just as in Kansas, Alabama, etc.
The scarcity of housing is due to opposition to building complimentary capital which the private sector has refused to do. For example, California has plenty of vacant private land, for example in the dying towns, but these towns are lacking the capital needed to attract population, like factories, which would require water, for example, better transportation, like roads, rail lines in good operating condition.
The 50s and 60s were periods of “wealth destruction” in most cities as both State and Federal big government tax and spend policies paid llots of workers to build, first, good roads and highways, second, utilities like water and sewer, third, schools. (Water and sewer are needed to reduce lot size minimums and costs for wells and septic systems which require lots of land.) As big government policies allowed suburban substitutes for urban tenements, people fled the cities, and city real estate prices fell, sometimes far below construction costs.
Somehow economists have forgotten the concept of “complements”, imagining housing can be built cheaply on land without road access, water and sewer, schools, ready access to employment. When private developers build communities, the costs, and prices, are very high. The iconic example, EPCOT, was the product of a big spender who seemed blind to the need to pay for his lavish spending. If not for his brother, it would have gone the way of Fordlândia.
Declining population means declining GDP. Like Puerto Rico.
jerseycityjoan
Jul 10 2019 at 5:29pm
I share many of your concerns and fears about US population growth — plus I have lots of other concerns and fears of my own.
We’ve had a long period of mass migration (both legal and illegal) into this country. We never had a discussion about what immigration levels we want or what the predicable future results would be for our choices.
At the very least I’d like our rapidly increasing population levels — which is due almost entirely to immigrants and their descendants — to be greatly reduced until we decide what’s best for ourselves, based on evidence and not on the immigrants’ interests or the desire of businesses to sell more products to more people.
God knows, at this rate, what apartments will be renting for in California in the future. Nothing that an average person will be able to pay. Then what? Nobody thinks about this, nobody knows.
Michael Pettengill
Jul 6 2019 at 10:26pm
The Constitution referred to, required “citizen”, for only those elected president or to the Congress, and for parties, citizens, of one State making claims in Federal court against citizens in another State.
Otherwise, the only term used is person, including the requirement citizens born outside the US elected to Congress be mere “persons” resident for some minimum period of time, as the view was naturalization could occur only after some extended years of residency in the US.
And for those born in the US, the Constitution deferred to the States the determination of which persons were considered citizens, until the 14th Amendment preempted thee State as deciding who was a citizen.
Thus, the census mandate has nothing to do with citizens, only persons, which in the case of slaves are counted as only 3/5th of a person.
More troubling is asking about being born in Puerto Rico, et al, as if that makes such persons less than “real” US citizens.
Which, we learn by way of legal action, Georgia has used as justification to attempt to deny equal treatment under Georgia administration of law:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/us/georgia-puerto-rico-drivers-license-lawsuit/index.html
Scott Sumner
Jul 7 2019 at 1:30pm
The “Puerto Rico” option also surprised me, as its native born residents are US citizens. I wonder if that was intentional, or an error.
Matthias Görgens
Jul 7 2019 at 7:35pm
I guess you could check two boxen by being born in the US, then giving up your citizenship, and later being naturalised again. Unlikely, but perhaps possible.
Peter Gerdes
Jul 7 2019 at 9:48pm
I’d think that the US government has substantial information of the number of legal immigrants based on immigration records and tax filings using the issued tax ID numbers. It’s not perfect because one has to estimate emigration back to home and/or percent of legal immigrants who are both unemployed and not filing as part of a married couple. However, I suspect it wouldn’t be hard to collect the statistical info to measure this pretty exactly. This allows an even more accurate count of illegal immigrants via the total population measure.
chris
Jul 8 2019 at 5:02pm
Scott,
I’m surprised that you are the first person I’ve seen question the validity of the data they will get from asking the question. I would guess you are right that this question is a terribly inaccurate way to measure the actual number of non-citizens in the country, making the supposed rationale almost worthless, while also reducing the accuracy of the census in general.
I’m sure that, if the administration was actually looking for this data, they would balk at the inaccuracy.
JayT
Jul 8 2019 at 5:47pm
Do illegal immigrants respond to the census currently? I’ve always heard that their participation was very low because they didn’t trust that it wasn’t a way to find them. This whole thing has kind of seemed like much ado about nothing to me, because I assumed that it wouldn’t really change the response rate.
Comments are closed.