Nothing wrong with census question about citizenship

U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto says that asking for a person’s place of birth as part of the census is “an assault on our representative democracy and our Constitution.” This is pure rhetoric designed to inflame fears.

Every census from 1880 through 2000 has asked for the individual’s place of birth; most have asked for the person’s parents’ places of birth. The 1920 and 1930 censuses asked specifically if the person was a citizen (born or naturalized) or an alien. Both the 2000 and 2010 censuses specifically asked if the individual was of “Hispanic/Latino or Spanish” origin.

The information from our past censuses has helped our government determine where to spend billions of dollars of revenue. It has helped Congress apportion representative districts and even genealogists to chart family trees. Rather than an assault on our Constitution, determining the origins of the people in our “fruit salad” has provided vital information to allow us to grow as a nation.

To allay the perception of invasion of privacy, federal law makes copies of census reports exempt from the legal process. The law also forbids the sharing of individual census reports with any other “department, bureau, agency, officer or employee of the government” (including the CIA and FBI) and prohibits release of anything but statistical information that does not identify individuals or businesses.

There are no consequences for answering the questions, and no one needs to fear the results. To ensure personal privacy, personal records from censuses are sealed from the public for 70 years. The 1950 census is scheduled for release only in two years.

Rather than eliminating politically incorrect questions, our national representatives should be sending the message to all residents to “cooperate with your census takers; you are not at risk (and your descendants may even thank you for it in the future).”