web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Citizenship

Ryan Shorthouse: How to boost integration

Ryan Shorthouse is the Founder and Director of Bright Blue, and co-author of Distant neighbours? Understanding and measuring social integration in England

Concern about a lack of social integration in the UK has been high for some time. In 2015, David Cameron even ordered a review into the state of social integration in the country. Published a year later, Dame Louise Casey’s Review into opportunity and integration concluded that successive governments have failed to ensure that social integration in the UK has kept up with the “unprecedented pace and scale of immigration”.

But what is social integration, and how can we strengthen it? That is the focus of Bright Blue’s latest report, published today.

We propose that neighbourhood trust should be at the heart of our understanding and measurement of social integration, since it is indicative of positive, meaningful and sustained interactions in a local area. Admittedly, neighbourhood trust is only capturing that between members of a community, not necessarily between people from different ethnic groups. In truth, then, neighbourhood trust would only be a good measure of social integration if that trust is high in an ethnically heterogeneous community.

Furthermore, since it is possible for people to trust their neighbours on the basis of them being in the same ethnic group, high levels of neighbourhood trust in ethnically diverse communities only indicate high levels of social integration when the local area is not residentially segregated. This is an important qualification that needs to be included when measuring levels of social integration.

We recommend that the Government, as well as local and combined authorities and public bodies, utilise this new measure of social integration. Specifically, the Government should produce a ten-yearly Social Integration Index, measuring levels of social integration across all different local authorities in the country. This Social Integration Index could consider incorporating other measures, such as levels of deprivation.

Bright Blue has had an initial attempt at this new Social Integration index, through independent statistical analysis the 2009-10 and 2010-11 Citizenship Survey, the 2011 Census and the 2015 Indices of Deprivation, as well as further analysis of the Index of Dissimilarity and the Index of Ethnic Diversity. Based on our proposed measure of social integration, we identified the four most socially integrated local authorities in England as those with relatively high levels of neighbourhood trust, relatively high levels of ethnic diversity and relatively low levels of residential segregation. These are the City of London; Cambridge; Richmond upon Thames, and Milton Keynes.

Our report proposes original policies to boost social integration in England. These are targeted at individuals, to better equip them to socially integrate, and institutions, to increase the opportunities for social integration. In particular, we focus on improving English language competence across all social groups, and reforming schools so they can support greater social mixing between young people.

First, on English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) course. Overall funding for them has fallen by 56 per cent from 2009-10 to 2016-17, which has been accompanied by a decline in participation from 179,000 to 114,000 people in the same time period.

The Controlling Migration Fund is a £100 million bidding fund launched in 2016 by the government to assist local authorities which are impacted the most by recent immigration to ease pressures on their services. Plans for the Controlling Migration Fund beyond 2020 are supposed to be considered during the next Spending Review.

Considering the importance of English language skills for social integration in this country, we recommend in our report that the Government continues the Controlling Migration Fund beyond 2020 and dedicates a minimum and significant proportion of it for funding ESOL projects. This will give local authorities who are under the most pressure a guaranteed resource with which they could provide ESOL courses to meet higher levels of demand.

Second, on National Citizen Service, which is a government-sponsored voluntary initiative for 15-17 year olds where they engage with a range of extracurricular activities that include outdoor team-building exercises, independent living and social action projects. The scheme currently operates both a four-week and a one-week version during school holidays.

National Citizen Service appears to improve some indicators of social integration in its participants, including increasing levels of trust in others and making it more likely to describe their local area as a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together.

We recommend that the UK Government trials delivering at least one week of NCS to all Year 9 or Year 10 students in all state secondary schools in England during term time. If the trial is successful, the Government should introduce a legal duty for all state secondary schools in England to provide at least one week of NCS to either all Year 9 or Year 10 pupils, depending on which cohort is found to be responding best to the scheme. The optimal length of time of the NCS during term time, ranging from one week to one month, should also be discovered through the trial and introduced during national rollout.

Finally, on school linking programmes. This involves bringing together classrooms of children from demographically diverse schools with the aim of increasing social contact between groups who would otherwise not meet. This can involve a range of collaborative activities, including exchanging work, joint drama, arts and sports sessions, and even community projects for older pupils. School linking can have a positive impact on many aspects of pupils’ skills, attitudes, perceptions and behaviours, including broadening the social groups with whom pupils interact.

The Pupil Premium is additional funding for state-funded primary and secondary schools designed to help disadvantaged pupils, such as those receiving free school meals and looked-after children, perform better. It is awarded for every eligible pupil in school and schools have significant freedom in how to spend it. Making part of this funding conditional on participating in a school linking scheme could incentivise participation in such programmes. As independent schools are not eligible to receive Pupil Premium payments, their participation in school linking programme must be incentivised through a separate mechanism. We recommend making the charitable status of such schools contingent on participation in a school linking programme.

There is no simple, straightforward solution to strengthen social integration. The limitations of public policy have to be recognised and respected, especially in regards to people being free to develop the relationships they want. And, crucially, social integration is a two-way street. It is not enough to say migrants and their children must do more to integrate; native Brits must also make an effort to welcome and involve newcomers.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

YouGov: 67% of Republicans say people who burn the flag should be stripped of citizenship

Westlake Legal Group yg YouGov: 67% of Republicans say people who burn the flag should be stripped of citizenship YouGov Trump The Blog republicans flag democrats Citizenship burning

Thankfully no one in a position of authority has endorsed this highly illiberal idea.

Oh. Right.

There’s less to this poll than meets the eye, I think. I hope?

Westlake Legal Group r YouGov: 67% of Republicans say people who burn the flag should be stripped of citizenship YouGov Trump The Blog republicans flag democrats Citizenship burning

I suspect most people who hear a question like that aren’t taking it at face value but are treating it as a proxy for whether flag-burning is broadly right or wrong. Would a good American burn the flag? Hell no, say Republicans! It’s our damned right to protest, counter Democrats! And that shakes out to the partisan mirror images we’re seeing here.

But it’s not that simple. A question that asked simply whether flag-burning is wrong would probably draw majorities of both parties. (Maybe?) A question that asked whether flag-burning should be punished with death wouldn’t approach majority levels on either side. (Again, I hope.) Tying it to citizenship is an in-between sanction that zeroes in on patriotism. How does a person who feels such contempt for America that he’d torch the flag rightly call himself an American? That’s what this question’s getting at. Few who answer are thinking through the implications of mainstreaming exile as a punishment for civic blasphemy. They’re treating it as a gut-check about whether someone who despises the country enough to burn Old Glory deserves the label of “American” as much as everyone else does.

Some righties who noticed the poll on Twitter this afternoon wondered how the results would have looked if YouGov had asked whether people who wave the Russian flag or celebrate Putin’s interference in the 2016 election should be deported. More Dems than Republicans would vote yes on that one, even though that result would also be obnoxious. Likewise, the idea of making “hate speech” a crime is perfectly mainstream in Europe and enjoys majority support among Democrats if you believe other YouGov polls. Asking about penalties for burning the American flag but not for desecrating other highly charged symbols more sacred to the left feels like YouGov’s way of gaming the poll to highlight illiberal tendencies on one side of the aisle only.

Exit question: Is it really that unlikely that a majority of Republicans would still support this idea after giving it some thought if Trump went all-in on championing it? Sixty-seven percent in favor seems unlikely, but what about 51 percent?

The post YouGov: 67% of Republicans say people who burn the flag should be stripped of citizenship appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group yg-300x153 YouGov: 67% of Republicans say people who burn the flag should be stripped of citizenship YouGov Trump The Blog republicans flag democrats Citizenship burning   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census?

Westlake Legal Group t-2 Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census? Trump The Blog survey Supreme Court redistricting question immigration illegal Citizenship census

Man, this is unexpected. As of a few hours ago, it looked like he was about to pull the trigger on executive action that would force the question onto the census whether the Supreme Court liked it or not. Then it would have been up to SCOTUS to either give in or try to stop him. If it gave in, it would be a huge blow to the Court’s prestige, an unhappy outcome for John Roberts.

But if it tried to stop him, we’d be facing a constitutional crisis.

The stars seemed to have aligned, then. Trump was set to show his fans that he fights! by issuing the order, on a day when he has hardcore Trumpers surrounding him for the White House’s social media summit. Now here comes ABC to say that the plan’s been scrapped. Trump’s going to let the census go out without the citizenship question and have the feds figure out another way to survey the public about citizenship.

President Donald Trump is expected to announce later Thursday he is backing down from his effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, and will instead take executive action that instructs the Commerce Department to survey the American public on the question through other means, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The expected announcement will bring to a close weeks of escalating confusion within the government over his demands that the controversial question be included despite a Supreme Court order that had blocked the move. The White House declined to comment about what exactly the president plans to announce.

As recently as Thursday morning, administration officials had been repeatedly suggested the president would take executive action calling for the question be added to the census. It was not immediately clear when and why the final decision was made not to move forward with that plan.

When they say that Commerce will “survey the American public on the [citizenship] question through other means,” do they mean through an entirely separate survey? Or do they mean that Commerce will go ahead and print the census without the citizenship question but also print a supplemental page on citizenship to be included in the census if the court battle goes forward and Trump wins? That’s what Trump himself had suggested might happen, per Ed’s post this afternoon. A lot depends on the answer. It’s the census itself that matters for districting purposes; if the plan here is to exclude illegals from the count in order to shift legislative power away from immigrant-heavy blue districts then the citizenship question has to be in the census, not in a separate survey. I’m not sure what purpose the separate survey would serve except as an academic look into the size of the total illegal population.

Maybe the “separate survey” isn’t separate after all but just a supplement to the census itself. Or maybe Trump thinks the separate survey could be tacked onto the census retroactively with court approval. He’s going to speak at 3:45 ET and clear this up.

Assuming he really is planning to throw in the towel on adding citizenship to the census, why the sudden cave? I’ll give you three theories.

1. It’s just too late. The deadline for settling the citizenship issue and getting the census to the printers was supposedly June 30. Supposedly printing has already begun on a version without the citizenship question. Maybe Wilbur Ross huddled with his deputies and let Trump know that it’s not logistically feasible to change course at this point, especially with more litigation ahead.

2. The DOJ was set to revolt. POTUS’s lawyers at the Justice Department have made a giant mess of this matter because the administration can’t get its story straight about why they want the citizenship question included. Is it to enforce the Voting Rights Act? To locate illegals for deportation? To redistrict the House to exclude illegals from the count? It was such a hash that maybe the White House concluded the legal case was unwinnable at this point and that if Trump tried to include the question anyway the Supreme Court would shut him down and humiliate him.

3. Trump already won, sort of. If the idea is to exclude illegal immigrants from the count, it’s a cinch that some immigrants will be so nervous about answering the census after all the media attention to this matter that they’ll end up throwing it in the trash when they get it. That is, blue districts are destined to underreport precisely because the legal battle here will have convinced some not to take a risk by sending their census questionnaire in. Maybe Trump considered that enough of a victory that he could afford to let the dispute quietly drop.

He’s speaking in exactly one hour. Stay tuned.

The post Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-2-300x153 Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census? Trump The Blog survey Supreme Court redistricting question immigration illegal Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump: Feel the power of my (nearly) fully operational EO on census citizenship question

Westlake Legal Group trump-barrier Trump: Feel the power of my (nearly) fully operational EO on census citizenship question The Blog Social Media donald trump Citizenship census

Can Donald Trump hack through the Gordian knot of two lawsuits over his attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census? It sure looks like Trump will give it a try. Earlier this morning, Trump announced a press conference on the subject as multiple news outlets reported that an executive order would be its centerpiece:

CNN’s White House sources say the EO will drop at the same time, but they’re being coy as to its contents so far:

President Donald Trump is expected to announce an executive action on the census Thursday, multiple White House officials said. …

Some type of direct action by Trump has been one of several avenues explored by the administration to place the question on the decennial population survey following the late June Supreme Court ruling. But any action by the President is likely to be challenged in court.

The Washington Post got an even more ambiguous read from its own administration sources:

White House officials did not immediately confirm Thursday morning that Trump would announce an executive order at the Rose Garden event — a move he has telegraphed for days.

The Supreme Court has called the administration’s rationale for the question “contrived” and said the government could not go forward without a solid justification.

Speaking to reporters at the White House last week, Trump said the question was needed “for many reasons.”

He raised the possibility that some kind of addendum could be printed separately after further litigation of the issue.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump said. “We could start the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision. So we’re working on a lot of things, including an executive order.”

That prompts an obvious question: an EO to do what, exactly? It can’t be to order the inclusion of the question, because that’s the point being reviewed by the courts. The Supreme Court left Trump hanging by demanding a better justification for adding the question back into the census, but time had arguably run out for any changes before the printing needs to start. (Trump’s legal team had argued that July 1 was the drop-dead date for adding the question.)

The Post’s suggestion of printing a supplement might make some sense as an EO. The idea would be to get the regular printing done in a timely manner and have the supplemental form on hand if the courts give him a go-ahead. Would that require a formal EO, however? Probably not, but the formal EO would give Trump an opportunity to showcase his efforts and to rally public sentiment. The public is already behind Trump on the issue of identifying US citizens in the census, although one would hardly know it from the handwringing in the media over a question that once was rather routine in previous censuses.

It’s a smart move to hold a presser on this subject while the public remains on Trump’s side, especially after the setbacks in court this week. Trump will want to make sure everyone knows that he’s still fighting to get the question added, or more basically that he’s still fighting period. The EO itself is secondary, and it’s not likely to make a dramatic change to the course of the issue.

By the time of the 3:45 ET speech and presser, we will know more, of course. We’ll also get a sense of the outcome of the social-media summit and whether the White House will get embarrassed any further after yesterday’s pas de d’oh! with Ben Garrison. Set your Twitter follows and Facebook friending accordingly. In the meantime, be sure to read HA alum Bryan Preston’s argument as to why the question should be included in the census — and indeed was included every time until 2010. Here’s a brief excerpt:

The census is at the heart of representation in our republic. The Constitution explicitly connects the census to representation of citizens. Citizenship has been a routine part of the census for most of our national existence, and resuming capturing this data ought not be controversial. Objections to the citizenship question are speculative at best, disingenuous at worst. The citizenship question is only controversial because like nearly everything else in American life, some want to use the census to serve their own political power plays.

The post Trump: Feel the power of my (nearly) fully operational EO on census citizenship question appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-barrier-300x162 Trump: Feel the power of my (nearly) fully operational EO on census citizenship question The Blog Social Media donald trump Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

“Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question

Westlake Legal Group dt-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census

How much of a mess has the White House made of this census dispute? So much that the Justice Department lawyers who’ve been handling the case for months are now trying to walk away from it en masse…

…and the courts won’t let them. It’s a federal judge who’s insisting for the moment that Trump’s A-team at the DOJ remain on the job, arguing his side.

At least until they give him a good reason why they shouldn’t. Can they? From today’s order denying the lawyers’ motion to withdraw:

Westlake Legal Group c-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census

Let’s back up. The DOJ initially convinced SCOTUS to take up the question of whether a citizenship question could be placed on the census in part by noting that time was of the essence. The census, supposedly, had to be at the printers by June 30. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and issued its verdict two weeks ago: Although the executive has power to add questions to the census, wrote John Roberts, it’s … pretty obvious that they’ve been lying about why they want the citizenship question added to it. The public needs clarity on that and the administration’s stated reasoning, that they need citizenship info to enforce the Voting Rights Act, simply isn’t supported by the evidence.

So the White House was thwarted unless and until it could provide a more credible explanation for wanting the citizenship question included — but since the deadline for printing the census was almost here, it seemed like there’d be no time to reconsider the matter. And so, inevitably, the DOJ announced on July 2 that the citizenship question would be dropped. Then Trump got to talking to his friends, who urged him to fight on, and he declared the next day — in a tweet — that the question wouldn’t be dropped after all, that the DOJ would fight on. And what about the June 30 deadline? Well, maybe the deadline wasn’t such a hard and fast deadline after all. Even though believing that it was helped convince SCOTUS to hear this appeal.

A federal judge in Maryland held a phone conference with the DOJ’s lawyers on July 3, after Trump’s tweet, to try to get a straight answer as to whether they were dropping the case or fighting on. The lawyers seemed as confused as the judge by the state of play:

Westlake Legal Group 1-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census   Westlake Legal Group 2-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census

All they had was a tweet. “This is a very fluid situation,” said Gardner later in the call, with no small amount of understatement. A source told the WSJ that “Nobody has any f***ing idea” what Trump wanted them to do.

Then came the next newsflash this past Sunday: The entire team of DOJ lawyers working on this case was planning to withdraw from it, a move which the NYT described as “all but unprecedented in legal battles.” Even stranger, the DOJ offered no explanation for the change. They didn’t offer one to the court either, per today’s order. You can’t just walk away without a good reason, said the judge, especially when you’ve spent months insisting that there’s a deadline here and time is of the essence in resolving the matter.

Why would the entire “federal programs” seek to drop the case like a hot potato? Maybe, said the Times, it’s because they feel the administration’s told so many lies — about its reasoning for wanting the question on the census, about the supposedly hard-and-fast deadline for the census, etc — that it’d be unethical for them to continue. That is, maybe they believe there’s no way to go forward here without either lying to the court or admitting that previous representations to the court were lies.

[The motion to withdraw] strongly suggested that the department’s career lawyers had decided to quit a case that at the least seemed to lack a legal basis, and at most left them defending statements that could well turn out to be untrue.

“There is no reason they would be taken off that case unless they saw what was coming down the road and said, ‘I won’t sign my name to that,’” Justin Levitt, a former senior official in the Justice Department under President Barack Obama, said on Sunday…

Lawyers who had been working on the case apparently concluded that they faced three problems. They had told the Supreme Court that they were up against a strict deadline of June 30 for printing the census forms, and there were difficulties in finding a new justification for the question that would not seem invented out of whole cloth. They may have also concluded that there was no way to move speedily enough to restore the question in any event, given that constitutional and statutory frameworks seem to require a lengthy administrative process before new questions may be added to the census.

If they objected to continuing on with the case due to ethical reasons, it makes sense that they wouldn’t want to state that in their motion to withdraw and risk embarrassing Trump and the department. But the federal judge who issued today’s order has called their bluff. Either they have to get back to work or they have to openly admit their ethical misgivings about what they’re being asked to do, which will be an unholy PR clusterfark for the White House and the DOJ. What are they going to do?

To give you a sense of just how messy this has gotten, read this story about the many times federal officials have contradicted their own stated reasoning for wanting to add the citizenship question to the census. Remember, it’s supposed to be about the Voting Rights Act, but figures like Ken Cuccinelli have admitted at times that the information might be used in immigration enforcement. And Trump himself admitted just a few days ago that it might be used for redistricting, perhaps to try to exclude illegals from the count in apportioning House districts. My takeaway from John Roberts’s opinion in the SCOTUS ruling was that he was straining for ways to give Trump the green light to do this but, as a matter of basic judicial integrity, couldn’t allow the administration to lie baldfaced to the Court about what its motives were. Now you have the president all but confessing that the Voting Rights Act rationale wasn’t the real reason for asking about citizenship on the census. If this case comes back to SCOTUS, Roberts may feel obliged to rule against Trump purely because it would embarrass the Court at this point to reward the administration with a win after lying so brazenly.

Trump may “win” anyway, though, if not in court than by making enough of a fuss about this that some illegals will refuse to answer the census questionnaire, leading to an undercount of the population in blue districts with large illegal populations. He might still win in court too, with POTUS reportedly considering an executive order to include the question on the census and begin printing. Again, though, that would operate as a sort of middle finger to SCOTUS, ignoring Roberts’s demand for a clearer rationale for including the question and ordering the government to proceed with it anyway on Trump’s say-so. If SCOTUS tries to stop him, then we’re in constitutional crisis territory. But first, we wait to see what the DOJ will do about today’s “get back to work” order.

The post “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group dt-1-300x153 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe

Westlake Legal Group caravan-border Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe The Blog question Citizenship census bureau census

Putting the citizenship question on the census is a Republican plot to steal the next election. It’s designed to suppress funding for low-income communities. It’s just racist. Take your pick of which of these typical headlines you like. To read most of the coverage in major newspapers or on the usual cable news shows, adding the citizenship question is an evil concept that all morally upright citizens should reject. But if that’s the case, why are so many people in favor of it? As it turns out, a majority of voters favor it and not even a third oppose it. (Washington Examiner)

Americans by a wide margin agree with President Trump that the upcoming 2020 census should ask a citizenship question.

The latest Economist/YouGov poll found that 53% feel it should ask the question versus 32% who don’t.

The survey asked: “Do you think the federal government should or should not ask people whether they are American citizens as part of the 2020 census?”

The Supreme Court has rejected including the question in a form the administration proposed but left the door open to another version. And Trump is considering changing the version.

The Yes/No/Not Sure count breaks down at 53/32/14. That’s really not even close, and even if all of the “unsure” voters swung to a negative answer they’d still be in the minority.

The Supreme Court rejected the question in its current form and also didn’t care for the reason it was being asked, but they did leave open the possibility of accepting it if it was restructured a bit and different reasoning was provided. As I noted previously, it seems a bit late for that now unless we really want to drive up the cost of printing and distributing the census forms, but the President may still take another run at it.

But that’s not the big issue here, at least as I’m reading the situation. Democrats are almost universal in very publicly opposing the addition of the citizenship question to the census and slamming the President and anyone who agrees with him over it. And yet again, they’re coming up on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to the feelings of the public. Every one of them who goes on record in this fashion is basically just feeding ammunition to the GOP for next year’s elections.

How many of these issues do they need to hang around their own necks before they go underwater? The public is solidly opposed to infanticide and late-term abortion. A clear majority are still opposed to gun bans. While voters do show significant support for some tenuous form of public health plans, they broadly oppose getting rid of private health insurance. Free health care for illegal immigrants is not at all popular.

The Democrats are building their 2020 platform out of a collection of planks that the public is rejecting. Pretty much the only thing they can agree on among themselves is that the Orange Man is Bad and needs to be removed. But in terms of policies, they appear to be driving themselves into a ditch. I find it remarkable that they’re doing as well as they are in recent polling because they’re pushing a lot of ideas that voters simply do not support.

The post Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group caravan-border-300x159 Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe The Blog question Citizenship census bureau census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Census question case in Maryland moving ahead

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm Census question case in Maryland moving ahead The Blog SCOTUS question Citizenship census bureau census

I bet some of you thought this issue was already dead and buried, but it’s apparently not. Despite the Supreme Court kicking the challenge to having the citizenship question on all census forms next year back for clarification, the case challenging it in Maryland is moving forward. Had the White House abandoned the effort after the Supreme Court ruling, this case likely would have been abandoned. But since the President is still weighing several options to prevail, onward we go. The focus of this case, however, has less to do with whether we should include the question and more to do with why the administration wanted it added in the first place. (NPR)

A federal judge in Maryland is moving forward with a case that claims the Trump administration intended to discriminate against immigrant communities of color by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

U.S. District Judge George Hazel ordered proceedings to continue after lawyers with the Justice Department confirmed in a court filing Friday that they are still exploring possible ways to add the question — “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” — to the census form. On Wednesday, President Trump indicated that he wants to find a way to do that would be acceptable to the Supreme Court…

Judge Hazel’s order means that as the Trump administration prolongs the legal fight to add a citizenship question, more evidence may be revealed in court about how and exactly why the administration tried to include a citizenship question on the census.

Just from the standpoint of pure logistics, it seems as if we’re beating a dead horse here. We’ve already missed the deadline to begin printing the forms and the order was sent over on Monday to start printing. (It now sounds as if that was delayed again, however.) It’s not that we can’t finish printing them on time with a late start, but every delay drives up the total cost. Of course, when you find a politician from either party who actually gives a hoot about the deficit, let me know.

The bizarre ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts leaves me wondering if there’s any use in batting this question around any longer. After all, the courts aren’t saying you can’t ask the citizenship question. They’re asking the administration to justify why they want the question asked, presumably thinking it would be fine as long as they come up with an acceptable answer.

Stranger still was the portion of the ruling that openly acknowledged the fact that the citizenship question has been asked of tens of millions of respondents on one form or another nearly every decade since before most of the people debating this issue were born. So has every previous census been invalid? Obviously not. This wouldn’t even be an issue if it wasn’t the Bad Orange Man making the request.

But just to be fair to the detractors, we’ve also run the census repeatedly where literally hundreds of millions of people weren’t asked the question and I haven’t noticed any impediments to enforcing the Voting Rights Act being discussed up until now. This would be good information to have and I supported the administration’s efforts to add it, but at the end of the day, we have to obey the Constitution and get on with taking the census. We’ve done this enough times by now that we know how long it takes to get all the forms printed and distributed on time. Sometimes you have to know when you’ve reached the point where it’s better to live to fight another day.

The post Census question case in Maryland moving ahead appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm-300x159 Census question case in Maryland moving ahead The Blog SCOTUS question Citizenship census bureau census Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump: We’re ‘absolutely moving forward’ on adding a citizenship question to the Census

Westlake Legal Group Census-letter Trump: We’re ‘absolutely moving forward’ on adding a citizenship question to the Census The Blog donald trump Citizenship census

Yesterday, there were reports at every major news outlet saying the same thing: The citizenship question would not appear on the 2020 Census. This morning, Trump said all of those reports were fake news:

The reports published yesterday were based on two things. First, a Department of Justice trial attorney named Kate Bailey sent an email to groups that were fighting the inclusion of the citizenship question in court. The email read, “We can confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process.” This is in writing and was sent to multiple people.

Secondly, yesterday the Secretary of Commerce confirmed that printing was moving forward without the question. From CNBC:

On Tuesday, Ross, in a statement had said, “I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.”

“The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census,” Ross said.

All of which seems pretty official and sounded pretty final. Even Nancy Pelosi got the message:

“Today’s decision is a welcome development for our democracy,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at the time.

“House Democrats will be vigilant to ensure a full, fair and accurate Census.”

It’s not clear what happened here but it looks like the Trump administration is not done fighting this. Stories are beginning to trickle out about this but no one seems to know yet what this means practically. It probably means the printing of the Census forms will be delayed. I’ll update this story once the administration issues some sort of clarification about what the plan is going forward.

The post Trump: We’re ‘absolutely moving forward’ on adding a citizenship question to the Census appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Census-letter-300x153 Trump: We’re ‘absolutely moving forward’ on adding a citizenship question to the Census The Blog donald trump Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Citizenship question will not appear on 2020 Census

Westlake Legal Group Census-letter Citizenship question will not appear on 2020 Census The Blog Citizenship census

Chief Justice Roberts struck again and today the Trump administration decided not to fight back. There will not be a citizenship question on the next Census. From CNN:

The government had initially said that Monday was the deadline to begin printing forms. As late as Monday afternoon, however, the administration asked a federal judge in Maryland for more time to decide how it would proceed following the Supreme Court decision.

On Tuesday afternoon, shortly before the rescheduled hearing was set to start, a Justice Department lawyer told plaintiffs the administration was moving ahead with printing.

“We can confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process,” Kate Bailey, a trial attorney with the Justice Department, wrote in an email to other attorneys involved in the case on Tuesday.

President Trump said last week that he might consider delaying the printing of the Census questionnaire. Just yesterday he reiterated that he thought the citizenship question was important:

“I think it is very important to find out if somebody is a citizen as opposed to an illegal,” Trump said. “It is a big difference to me between being a citizen of the United States and being an illegal.”

Trump has insisted on asking about citizenship to the consternation of critics and constitutional experts who say that adding such a question would lead to decreased responses and inaccurate counts…

The president’s critics have also argued that adding such a question would lead to a chilling effect among immigrants who might fear increased government attention to their citizenship status.

This is one of those issues where it’s hard for me to take the opposing point of view very seriously. Jazz wrote a good post looking at those arguments back in April and I find his rebuttals entirely convincing. Simply put, we’ve asked this before so there’s really no doubt it’s allowable to ask.

As for the concerns about a “chilling effect” is that supposed to be a feature or a bug? Given the crisis we have now at the border, don’t we want to create a chilling effect among immigrants who come here illegally. You could argue that the two issues are distinct, i.e. the Census question is about who is already here and the ongoing border crisis is about who is coming here.

I don’t think the two are that distinct. If the message we’re sending is that, once you make it across the border by whatever means we’re not going to do anything or even ask a question about it as a nation, then that’s the message that gets sent around the world. We’re seeing the results of that message play out right now.

On the other hand, if the message is that we’re going to keep careful track of who is here legally and who isn’t, then that’s the message that gets sent. Again, it’s not that this information was going to be used to round anyone up for deportation, it’s mostly just a tone being set. Given current events, we could stand a little chilling effect.

Chief Justice Roberts must have known that by sending this back to a lower court, with the help of the court’s liberals who opposed adding the question, he was creating a delay that would make it all but impossible to include the question as a practical matter. Delaying the printing of the census is possible but it’s expensive and Democrats in the House refused to put up any money for a delay. This seems like a political move on Roberts’ part to find a way to give the left what it wants (and not for the first time).

The post Citizenship question will not appear on 2020 Census appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Census-letter-300x153 Citizenship question will not appear on 2020 Census The Blog Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Administration Folds on the Issue of Counting US Citizens In the 2020 Census

Westlake Legal Group AP_17285648923019-620x423 Trump Administration Folds on the Issue of Counting US Citizens In the 2020 Census republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Citizenship Question Citizenship census 2020 census Allow Media Exception

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to discuss preparing for the 2020 Census, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017. The Trump administration acknowledged on Thursday that billions more dollars are “urgently needed” to ensure a fair and accurate count during the 2020 Census. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

It seems like every week marks another controversy involving the left using lawfare to advance its goal of turning this nation into the proverbial Third World sh** hole and the Administration trying to keep that from happening. The Administration has chalked up some wins but last week it lost a major one.

One of the goals of the Administration had been to ensure the US decennial census enumerated the number of US citizens rather than the number of warmish bodies of uncertain provenance. The Census would have counted everyone, but it would have identified who was eligible to vote and who wouldn’t. There is nothing nefarious about this. The UN’s agency that advises nations on how do conduct censuses recommends that citizenship be a question. Up until 1960, citizenship was a standard question. The left didn’t like that idea at all because of two factors, one real and one illusory. The illusory reason was that illegal aliens would not fill out the Census forms because of fear of being deported or some such bullsh**. Think about that for a moment. People who entered the country illegally and who are more likely than not engaged in identity theft in order to get documents that allow them to work–or who work for cash and don’t pay taxes–would quail at the thought of lying on a Census form about their citizenship. Does that make sense to you? Didn’t think so.

The real reason is that rolling non-citizens into redistricting numbers is a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause. A district composed of 50% illegals gives greater weight to the votes of the citizens in that district than to that of a district that is 100% citizen. Basing congressional seats on having a bazillion illegals disadvantages states which have a low number of illegals.

The administration added the question to the Census…and they did it according to the old Army maxim of “if you want it bad, you get it bad.” The process by which the citizenship question was added as so half-assed and ad hoc that it was difficult to construct any kind of defense for why it was included. In fact, the Supreme Court plurality last week ruled that the Administration had the authority to add the question but their justification was a pretext. They were told to come up with a better reason if they wanted to add the question. This, quite simply, was an own goal. It was a decision that was either the result of someone being too cute by half or of deliberate sabotage of the decision.

Yesterday, the Administration made noises like it would persist in trying to add the question but it was really up against a pretty tight time window if the results were to be collected by the end of 2020. Just a few hours ago, the Administration bowed to the inevitable and pulled the citizenship question.

Make no mistake about it. This is a huge loss and sets back the cause of protecting the right to vote and ensuring that Congress represents citizens and not flocks of illegals. The Administration can gripe about courts and the left all they want, but the bottom line here is that they screwed the pooch by engaging in a haphazard process that they knew, or should have known, was going to end up in hostile courts. They have no one to blame but themselves.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Trump Administration Folds on the Issue of Counting US Citizens In the 2020 Census appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_17285648923019-300x205 Trump Administration Folds on the Issue of Counting US Citizens In the 2020 Census republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Citizenship Question Citizenship census 2020 census Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com