Is the US Government actively violating the 14th amendment?

[Barack_Obama]

Can the gov actually question peoples citizenship status on the census form? Is a lawsuit required to keep the government from violating the constitution? Which iirc no state or government official can question a person their citizenship unless it’s at airport / border or with due process of law.

And doesn’t the implication of being arrested for citizenship status deter/prevent people from being protected by the law, which basically violates the “No state can deny any person equal protection of the laws” written in the 14th amendment? Or does that only mean as long as you’re technically protected, the laws can be refused to be enforced at the leisure of law enforcement?
Does the ACLU got lawsuits for every person that was afraid to report a crime because of ICE? Or is it mass violation of the constitution with no repercussions?

[Bricker]

@Barack_Obama

Which iirc no state or government official can question a person their citizenship unless it’s at airport / border or with due process of law.

That’s not a rule.

And doesn’t the implication of being arrested for citizenship status deter/prevent people from being protected by the law, which basically violates the “No state can deny any person equal protection of the laws” written in the 14th amendment?

No. No, it doesn’t violate the clause.

[OldGuy]

As the census is used in part to determine the allocation of representatives (both Federal and State) it would seem strange to me to not ask citizenship.

[Smapti]

@OldGuy

As the census is used in part to determine the allocation of representatives (both Federal and State) it would seem strange to me to not ask citizenship.

The Constitution states that apportionment is based on “the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed”, not just the citizens.

Non-citizens are quite obviously persons, and “Indians not taxed” is a status that no longer exists, so citizenship is irrelevant when it comes to apportionment.

[OldGuy]

@Smapti

The Constitution states that apportionment is based on “the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed”, not just the citizens.

Non-citizens are quite obviously persons, and “Indians not taxed” is a status that no longer exists, so citizenship is irrelevant when it comes to apportionment.

I’d forgotten that, but then at the times those were essentially the same. Two year’s residence was all that was required to become a citizen in 1790.

[Smapti]

@OldGuy

I’d forgotten that, but then at the times those were essentially the same. Two year’s residence was all that was required to become a citizen in 1790.

The current language is from the 14th amendment, which is the first time the Constitution defines citizenship. The fact that it specifies “persons” instead of “citizens” indicates that the authors intended for non-citizens to be counted towards apportionment.

[Ace309]

@Barack_Obama

… iirc no state or government official can question a person their citizenship unless it’s at airport / border or with due process of law. l

Can you provide support for your recollection? I’m no expert but I don’t think this is correct.

Also, does “the implication of being arrested for citizenship status” exist in any real form, or are you just skeeved out? Skeeved out isn’t a legal standard.

[Tom_Tildrum]

FWIW, the census has asked about citizenship many times in the past.

[DSYoungEsq]

How is asking something a violation of due process? I mean, really, OP, let’s offer a legal thesis for this proposed concept.

Or does this thread really belong in IMHO?

[John_Mace]

@DSYoungEsq

How is asking something a violation of due process? I mean, really, OP, let’s offer a legal thesis for this proposed concept.

Or does this thread really belong in IMHO?

Hey, it’s not like the OP is a constitutional scholar or anything!

But there are lawsuits, even if not for 14th amendment reasons:

A coalition of 17 states, Washington, D.C., and six cities announced Tuesday that they are suing to block the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census.

The lawsuit, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, argues that the question will depress responses in states with large immigrant populations. This would cause the census to run afoul of the “constitutional requirement” that the government fairly and accurately count all people in the country, Schneiderman said at a news conference announcing the suit.

[iamthewalrus_3]

ETA: sorry, I duplicated someone else’s answer. I don’t think I can delete this post, but I remove the body.

[tracer]

I’d think the 4th Amendment would be more important in this case than the 14th Amendment would.

[enipla]

States with a high(er) number of non-citizens will get undercounted, and thus less federal money. That’s all that they are trying to do. Punish states like California.

I wonder if you just didn’t answer that question, if the rest of the census form would be voided?

[begbert2]

@enipla

I wonder if you just didn’t answer that question, if the rest of the census form would be voided?

I imagine non-citizens filling in the form would be concerned that filling in the census but leaving that one question blank would be the same as filling in the census and marking that question “arrest me”.