ROOTS & BRANCHES

It’s not often that I’ve used the “Roots & Branches” pulpit to talk about something political.

But the ongoing controversy over whether to put a citizenship question back in the U.S. Census questionnaire for the first time in more than half a century is worthy of comment, especially because it pulls me in some opposite directions.

On the one hand, as a genealogist I’m always in favor of any record set having more information rather than less information.

The once-in-a-decade federal census is currently open to the public through and including 1940 (the returns are supposed to only become public documents 72 years afterwards – 1950 is scheduled for release in 2022).

The returns from 1900 to 1940 all had some form of citizenship question and most had helpful boxes for year of immigration and year of naturalization. Not all of which are accurate, but they offer a great starting point to look for other records such as passenger arrival lists and the actual naturalization documents.

So, from a purely theoretical “more information is better standpoint,” I have no objection to such a question on the census (realizing that in part my stance is informed by being a white male whose last immigrants came to this country in the 1830s).

That’s the theory.

Now to offer a “gobsmacking” portion of reality to the mix.

First, I’m often reminded of a Reader’s Digest “Quotable Quote:” “For everything there are two reasons: The good reason and the real reason.”

The “good” reason offered by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross – that the question is needed to help enforce the Voting Rights Act – is laughable on its face (E-mails have already surfaced showing that Ross and his people asked the Justice Department to create the phony reason).

It’s obvious that the “real” reason is to attempt to chill the participation of illegal aliens in the census, even though it has always counted an “actual enumeration” (the Constitution’s words) of all people, to under-represent areas with more illegal aliens in Congress and distribution of federal funds.

It’s a racist ploy and, unfortunately, I believe it’s going work even if it’s kept off the final questionnaire.

I’m reminded of several years ago when I spent Election Day handing out literature for a candidate; even though it had been well publicized for a year that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law had been ruled unconstitutional, a good number of people arrived asking if they’d need ID to vote.

Just by putting the question out there into the social-media whirlwind, the chilling effect will be in some part achieved.

So sad to see what should be just a information-gathering headcount so politicized.