Suppose a property owner had a thick windbreak of trees paralleling a nearby highway. It dampened noise and dust for him and his neighbors. Suppose further that he wanted to bulldoze the windbreak to get a better view of the sunset or to annoy neighbors he disliked. The neighbors sued him in court and the judge ruled that while what the owner wanted to do was perfectly legal, his motive was suspect and thus his windbreak stands.

Most of us would find it outrageous that we have to have a pure motive, by someone else's standards, to exercise our rights. Yet that is precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Department of Commerce et al. v. New York et al. The Trump administration wanted to include in the upcoming census the question of citizenship. Leftists, that never-ending source of deep thought, were of course ballistic that those who broke the law as illegal aliens might shy away from the census and be undercounted. But the very reasons they use to justify covering for illegals—apportionment of representatives in the House and dividing up federal funds—are the same reasons it's wrong to include such aliens in the census.

RELATED

It's bizarre that anyone thinks that those who are here illegally and supposedly have no right to vote should have any influence on apportionment in the House of Representatives, but this is what the crank left wants. The whole point of the census as outlined in the Constitution was for splitting up representatives according to the states' citizenry, not for people in America illegally. The Electoral College is equally affected.

WDAY logo
listen live
watch live

Alabama stands to lose a representative after the next census while states like California stand to gain in a completely unconstitutional, illegal way. So much for equal representation, as Alabama's attorney general points out. Yet the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts (who shows signs of “growing in office” as spineless conservatives are wont to do) rejected the argument because it didn't like the reason behind the census's legal request. The issue was returned to lower courts to see if the Trump administration can come up with a nicer, sweeter, more politically correct way to exercise its right to keep tabs on immigrant lawbreakers.

The U.S. Census Bureau isn't much help here. On one hand for apportionment purposes people in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and American Islands aren't counted because they have no representation in the House. Makes sense. On the other hand, the Bureau claims that citizens and non-citizens are to be included in the count. It's unclear whether “non-citizens” necessarily includes illegals or just alien residents legally here, but in any case non-citizens have no representative authority in the U.S. Congress.

Take a look sometime at the Constitution. It mentions “person” or “persons” some 30 times, practically always in the context of being citizens. For example, “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to...” in which one had to be a citizen to even run for the Senate. But in infantile America, it's the thought that counts.