Connect with us

News

Federal Judge Throws a Fit Over Immigration Question in the U.S. Census

Published

on

The Trump Administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census has made a federal judge to throw a fit.

On Wednesday March 7, Judge Richard Seeborg argues that adding this question “threatens the very foundation of our democratic system.”

Seeborg continued, asserting that the “commerce secretary’s decision to add the question was arbitrary and capricious and would violate a constitutional requirement that the census count everyone in the country.” According to Seeborg, evidence shows that this question would a create a significant undercount of non-citizens and Latinos.

Trending: More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats

Seeborg’s statements on Wednesday made him the second judge to declare the Trump administration’s census decision to be illegal. A federal judge in New York blocked the administration from adding the citizenship question from the census. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed last month to review that decision.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The state of California and several cities in the state sued the Trump administration over the citizenship question as well.

In the view of several state attorneys in California, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross failed to take into consideration that this citizenship question would impose heavy costs on California and also make it lose one congressional seat due to the reduced percentage of immigrants responding to the survey, thus leading to an undercount.

The distribution of congressional seats within a state and the billions of dollars in federal funding they receive are based off of census numbers.

The Justice Department defended its decision by arguing that census officials make in-person follow-up visits to get a more accurate count.

In court documents, Justice Department attorneys asserted that households that skip the citizenship question but fill out the rest of the questionnaire are still counted.

It’s rather ironic that a judge is claiming that census questions inquiring about citizenship are threats to democracy.

The fact of the matter is that mass migration under the current welfare environment we live in is a legitimate threat to our democracy and social cohesion. Across the pond, Europe offers a lurid image of what happens when mass migration takes hold in a country.

Leftist judges like Seeborg and their Democrat cronies will obviously push back against any efforts to curtail immigration, given immigrants’ propensity to vote for the party that gives them the most handout aka the Democratic party.

There is no room for bromides about democracy or virtue signaling about racism when discussing immigration matters. What’s at stake is the very cultural fabric of the United States.

If that is disrupted, we can kiss the liberties we cherish as Americans goodbye.

The real threat to our democracy is the open borders status quo we are all subject to.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

News

Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?

Published

on

Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?

Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.

Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.

The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.

In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.

One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.

The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”

The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”

Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”

Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.

His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”

Sanders responded, “Yes.”

Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.

All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.

Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending