Collecting Information About Citizenship Status in Connection With the Decennial Census

Background

Executive Order 13880, issued in July 2019, directed federal agencies to share data to compile a precise count of citizens, non-citizens, and illegal immigrants in the United States. It followed the Supreme Court's ruling that blocked the inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 census. The intent was to use existing administrative records from various federal agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services, to gather this data. This intensive data collection aimed to impact the enforcement of immigration laws and the distribution of federal resources based on more precise population data.

Beyond data sharing, the order also called for an interagency working group led by the Census Bureau to ensure the acquisition and coordination of administrative records to establish citizenship status. This created new operational directives where offices involved were expected to prioritize the request protocol, potentially reallocating resources away from other responsibilities. The order pushed for agency compliance without the requisite rulemaking processes, expediting what some saw as bureaucratic overreach. Many agencies had to re-evaluate their privacy policies and data-sharing agreements, responding to a demand for unprecedented access to personal and sensitive data.

Social policy implications were significant. On one hand, the proponents viewed it as a way to update and modernize immigration evaluation tools, asserting a necessity for a comprehensive understanding of the immigration landscape. On the other, critics were concerned about the chilling effect on census participation among immigrant communities, fearing that intensified data scrutiny could lead to misuse or even punitive immigration enforcement. The demand for citizenship information raised skepticism about its genuine intent and further polarized the public on immigration issues, adding to an already contentious debate.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of the order on January 20, 2021, by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., was emblematic of a broader ideological shift in the White House's approach to immigration and census practices. President Biden's decision to rescind the order aligned with his administration's commitment to ensuring a fair and accurate census free of intimidation or fear among immigrant populations. The ideological pivot was grounded in principles valuing inclusive citizenship representation and the need for policy implementation sensitive to minority communities.

By overturning the order, the Biden Administration sought to restore trust in the Census Bureau, particularly among communities fearful of their data being used against them. The aim was to dismantle measures that might deter full population participation, thereby ensuring federal resources and congressional representation reflect an accurate populace count. The administration's policies emphasized transparency, with citizenship data viewed more appropriately collected through surveys like the American Community Survey without coercive overtones.

The decision to revoke was also pressed by political practicality. Several advocacy groups and experts argued that the order was redundant and expensive, diverting resources from fulfilling the immediate needs of the census. By eliminating it, the administration freed up resources, returning focus to achieving comprehensive coverage in communities historically underrepresented.

Broadly, the revocation was a repudiation of policies perceived as overt attempts at politicizing the Census Bureau's nonpartisan operations. As part of a broader immigration policy agenda, it aligned with reversing many of the previous administration's orders that were seen as divisive, attempting to signify a return to transparency, ethical data stewardship, and equity in government operations.

Winners

Immigrant communities were among the primary beneficiaries of the order's revocation. Without the existential threat of their data potentially being used for immigration enforcement, these groups could participate in the census without fear, resulting in more accurate representation and fair allocation of federal resources. Communities with high immigrant populations likely saw less risk of underrepresentation, potentially gaining politically and economically from communal development and services.

Nonprofits and advocacy groups focusing on immigrant rights, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center, viewed the revocation as a victory. Their campaigns against the order emphasized the negative impacts it could have on marginalized communities, and their extensive lobbying efforts helped shape public discourse leading to policy change.

State governments and local municipalities also stood to gain. With an accurate and complete count, they could ensure equitable distributions of federal funds, plan better for infrastructure, social services, and public health programs. States reliant on federal grants and aid saw an opportunity to leverage better census results to support diverse community populations, reinforcing communal strength and democracy.

Losers

Some within the political sphere supporting stricter immigration policies might consider the revocation a setback. They believed in leveraging the data to enforce immigration laws more effectively and in determining legislative district lines drawn based on citizen rather than total population counts as a matter of state experimentations reflective of citizen-led representation. Without citizenship data extracted directly from the census, they argued policy evaluation and reform can be less informed.

Additionally, conservative think tanks and policymakers arguing for tougher immigration restrictions on public services may have found the decision disadvantageous. They contended that solid citizenship data from comprehensive federal records was crucial to shaping sound social policy, particularly in curtailing illegal immigration's perceived economic burdens. The dismissal of this order may have appeared as a rebuke to such economic arguments.

Some agency operations might have experienced disruptions in adjusting resources previously allocated for citizenship data collection initiatives back to standard functions. This could include the Department of Homeland Security's administrative adjustments or the Census Bureau's planning reallocations. These agencies faced bureaucratic transitions as they adjusted to the removal of mandates set by the order.