Thread by @tomTMwolf

Well, now the minority staff of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform has gotten in the game of spreading census history that’s misleading where it’s not outright false. Mini-thread 👇#2020Census @BrennanCenter

Here's their report, fwiw: republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…

This statement in their new report? False in many of its particulars, and dangerously misleading in its ultimate suggestions.

Let's unpack this...

(1) Secretary Ross wants to ask for the citizenship status of everyone in the country. The census has never asked for the citizenship status of everyone in the country. Something unprecedented like Secretary Ross’s citizenship question is, in fact, “new.”

(2) The census did NOT “inquire[] about citizenship” (or naturalization) every decade "from 1820 to 1950.” That’s just wrong. The appendix in this @GeorgetownLJ article makes that clear: bit.ly/2WNpYZf

(3) No doubt, the census asked about citizenship or naturalization status on some censuses during this time period. But it NEVER asked for EVERYONE’S citizenship data. Not even once. Again, what Secretary Ross wants to do is NOT normal, historically speaking.

(4) The minority staff's account vacuums out all the context necessary to make sense of older censuses and to understand why it’s absurd to cite, say, the 1920 census’s naturalization question as some kind of good precedent for what Sec’y Ross wants to do now.

These early censuses did not have a good track record.

The Census Bureau realized after the 1950 Census that trying to count heads AND collect large amounts of other info—the two things that the Bureau had long tried to do with the decennial census—had massive problems.

This approach to the census was costly, error-laden, etc. So, after 1950, the Bureau dramatically switched up its practice. The main thing the Bureau did: Separate counting heads from most of the other data gathering.

The Bureau created a short form to count heads and sample surveys to collect everything else.

This allowed it to protect the head count from problems created by trying to gather other data. For most questions, it was easier and/or safer to just ask a sample of the population and extrapolate from there.

So, if your main argument for the citizenship question is that we asked about citizenship before the 1960 census, you’re relying on a completely flawed census paradigm.

(5) Another problem: The report treats the appearance of citizenship questions on the sample surveys from 1970 onward as some kind of stamp of approval for their appearance on the 2020 head count form. But that’s wrong!

These questions have been confined strictly to the sample forms because the Bureau has long recognized that trying to assess everyone’s citizenship in this era of hyper-xenophobic, anti-immigrant politics would destroy the count.

My co-author and I put together 15K words on the misinformation that’s been floating around about the history of citizenship questions. Full article @GeorgetownLJ: bit.ly/2WNpYZf. TL;DR version here w/ @latimes: lat.ms/2Ggq46e

Thanks for reading! For more on the #2020Census, check out our resource page: brennancenter.org/issues/2020-ce…