How Race, Ethnicity Questions On Census Boost Anti-White Quotas

I`m always being asked why I study
identity politics issues such as race, ethnicity,
sex,
and age.

The implication is that those aren`t
appropriate topics for

respectable
discussion.

Yet the
Census form that recently arrived in your mailbox shows that
the U.S. government is quietly obsessed with those same
questions.

The

Constitution
 defines
the decennial Census
as an
"enumeration"
i.e., a count of everybody. Therefore, the
questionnaire is kept relatively short. (The Census Bureau
asks more detailed questions on a vast variety of subjects
on its monthly

American Community Survey
sample of 250,000.)

What
questions are considered so critical to the government in
2010 that the Census has to ask them of every single
resident?

Of the

ten questions
on the 2010 form, five are concerned with
enumeration (for example, asking your name and phone number)
and one with whether you own your home (with or without a

mortgage
). The other four deal with identity:


6. What
is Person 1`s sex?

7. What is Person 1`s age and Date of
Birth?

8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or
Spanish origin?

9. What is Person 1`s race?

In contrast, there are—of course—no
questions asked about whether the resident is a citizen or
is
even in the country legally.


Personally, I believe that paying careful attention to what
the state is doing is public-spirited. But it`s more
fashionable to be studiedly
naïve and
ignorant about race
. For example, liberal blogger

Matthew Yglesias
recently

proclaimed
:


 "My guess is that in
the future the vast majority of people descended from
immigrants from
Asia
or

Latin America
will be seen as white."

Yet, why in the world would they want to
be white when they
win
money and prizes from the government
for being legally
nonwhite? You get more of what you pay for. And the U.S.
pays people to consider themselves non-white.

Thus, since the 1960s, all the movement
has been away from being seen as white. For example, Indian
immigrants used to be officially white. But South Asian
businessmen successfully lobbied the Reagan Administration
in
1982
to have Indians reclassified from Caucasian to
Asian category so that they could get on the
gravy
train
for

low interest SBA minority development loans
and
minority
preferences
on government contracting.

When you stop and think about it, it`s
bizarre that Indians, the

highest income
recent immigrant group, receives legal
preference over native-born U.S. citizens from the U.S.
government. But it`s considered in bad taste to suggest that
Indians should

give up their racial privileges.

The
Census seems to furnishes a good time to think about how the
government classifies people by race and
ethnicity—abstruse-sounding questions that turn out to be
hugely important.

By
themselves, the ten Census questions only allow the
government to determine:

  1. The
    number who live in each political jurisdiction

  2. Their race and ethnicity

  3. Whether they own their homes

The
first purpose follows directly from the Constitution, which
mandates that Census results be to be used for redistricting
every ten years.

One little-known oddity about the Census:
 illegal
immigrants
are currently counted the same as citizens in
drawing up Congressional and legislative districts. Highly
Hispanic districts thus tend to be
"rotten
boroughs
"
representing

relatively few actual citizens a.k.a. voters,
which
makes a mockery of the Supreme Court`s principle of
one-man-one-vote.

For example, in 2008, immigrant enthusiast
Democrat Xavier Becerra won re-election in California`s

31st
Congressional District, a heavily illegal immigrant
part of Los Angeles County, in an election that saw only
111,000 votes cast. In contrast, in California`s

50th
Congressional District in suburban north San Diego
County, Republican

Brian Bilbray
won a

race
in which a total of 312,000 votes were cast. Each

individual voter in Bilbray`s district
counts for only
36% as much as an individual voter in Becerra`s district.

Britain reformed

rotten boroughs
during the Prime Ministership of the

Duke of Wellington
. But they are increasing in modern
America, a direct result of our ongoing illegal immigration
disaster.

Let`s turn to the government`s second
purpose, finding out your Race and Ethnicity. These
questions on the Census form provoke a little more public
discussion. Hence, the Census Bureau`s official

justification
of its Race question claims:

"Race
data are also used to assess fairness of employment
practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics
such as

health
and

education
and to plan and obtain funds for public
services."

You may wonder what
data have to do with

"fairness of employment practices
."
After all, civil
rights laws are usually justified as being about blacks
not
having to sit in the back of the bus,
which you probably
haven`t seen much of lately.

So how does anti-discrimination compliance
get assessed by race data, anyway? Because, in reality,
civil rights programs these days are mostly based on
numbers—"Disparate
Impact"
—not actual, you know, discrimination ("Disparate Treatment").

Statistics can`t measure equal
opportunity, just equal results. The government starts with
the assumption that if, say, employment rates diverge from
population makeup by more than

one-fifth,
it`s the employer`s obligation to
disprove
the presumption of illegal discrimination.
In other
words, the feds` message is:
Impose
quotas upon yourselves
or expect to pay a fortune in
legal fees.

As the
Census Bureau says, these numbers are thus used to calculate
the size of these implicit and explicit quotas. And not just
for employment. For example, the 2010 Census questionnaire
was specifically designed to enable the government to
calculate conveniently ethnic and racial disparities in home
ownership. As you may recall, George W. Bush

cited
ethnic and racial differences from the 2000 Census
at his
2002 White House Conference on Increasing Minority
Homeownership
to justify

zero down payment
mortgages and other
government-encouraged tricks to undercut

old-fashioned credit standards.
Similarly,

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quotas
are assigned by

Census tract
.

(Remind
me again: How`d that work out for us last time?

(And why
are we doing it again?)

By the
way: no, you can`t cut yourself in for a piece of the
preference pie just by declaring yourself a minority on your
Census form. There`s no connection between how you answer on
the Census and whether or not employers and the government
think you personally are eligible for affirmative action.

Another oddity: why does the government
care about your
“ethnicity”
if you are Hispanic—but doesn`t care about
your ethnicity if you are anything else? Why are some
ethnics more equal than others? (For that matter, why is
Ethnicity on the Census form when, say,

Religion
is not?)



Because

Hispanics get special privileges under the law.

The Ethnicity question exists as a supplement to Race to
allow Hispanics to benefit from American anti-racism
programs while remaining racist themselves.

A large fraction of Latinos are
adamant that they are white.
(Latin American cultures
are notoriously
biased
against blacks and Amerindians.) Whites aren`t legally
privileged in modern America. So how can Hispanics have
their cake (being

white
) and eat it (getting

privileges over whites
), too?

By concocting a legal status ("Ethnicity")
that only exists for Hispanics. This enables them to get in
on the Disparate Impact Express, just like blacks and
Amerindians, without admitting to being any bit
black or
Indian!

It`s ridiculous. But most Americans find

Latinos too boring to think about
. So the vast majority
of attention is devoted to arguing over the Race question
rather than the Ethnicity question, even though the former
is more likely to be a hopeless political cause.

Note also that the Census Bureau goes on
to assert in its

justification
of the Ethnicity question that

"State and local
governments may use the data to help plan and administer
bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin."

The Bureau isn`t even trying to make sense
here, because the Ethnicity question doesn`t ask anything
about language, just
"origin."
The obvious intent, of course, is to maximize
the number of clients that the bilingualism a.k.a.
Spanish-language lobby can claim.

Another
Ethnicity v. Race oddity that nobody notices: the Census
allows individuals to declare themselves multiracial—but not
multiethnic.

Since 2000, Census respondents have been
permitted to choose as many races as they find they need to
describe themselves. The 2010 form states:
"Mark one or more
races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself
to be.
"

People
with parents of different races had lobbied hard for this in
the 1990s. They argued that being forced to pick just one
racial identity for themselves was in effect requiring them
to decide whether they loved their mother or father most.


Significantly, however, those kinds of concerns don`t seem
to bother President Barack Obama at all. Although he was
largely raised by his white relations, and he only spent a
single month with his

Kenyan father
after he was an infant, the
"post-racial"
President has checked just

one box
in 2010:
"Black, African Am., or Negro."

As I point out in my reader`s guide to the
President`s memoirs,
America`s
Half-Blood Prince
, the preppie from
Honolulu
labored for years to convince himself that he was black
enough to be a black leader. This career plan induced him to
publish an autobiography entitled
Dreams from My Father
just as his white mother was dying of cancer.

Yet
another little-known oddity about the Census: for the
government`s main purpose in asking about Race and
Ethnicity—calculating the size of
quotas
technically, it doesn`t matter whether Obama puts himself
down as just black or as black and white anyway. That`s
because the Clinton Administration announced on March 9,
2000 that the government will simply ignore the white box.
For use in civil rights enforcement and monitoring, the

OMB bulletin
declared,
"Responses that
combine one minority race and white are
[to be]
allocated to the minority race."

So
allowing multiracial responses winds up just enlarging
anti-white racial quotas.

And it
turns out to be good thing that nobody is allowed to choose
to both be Hispanic and non-Hispanic, because that would
just increase anti-white quotas even more.

When it comes to filling out the Census
form and mailing it in, white people tend to be both the
most conscientious (the town with highest response rate so
far is

Dubuque
, Iowa), and also the most troubled by idealistic
objections to counting by race and ethnicity. Some are
refusing to fill in the race and ethnicity questions. Others
are putting in answers for Race such as
"Human" or
"American."

The
intention is noble. But this game was rigged a long time
ago. Your every move was anticipated.

The beneficiaries of quotas pay a lot more
attention to the rules of the game than do their

quota benefactors,
who only get even slightly interested
when their Census surveys arrive every ten years.

The time
to organize is between Censuses. But the important step is
to organize. These issues are too crucial to continue to
leave wholly to the good will of minority activists.

[Steve Sailer (email
him) is


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.

His website

www.iSteve.blogspot.com

features his daily blog. His new book,

AMERICA`S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA`S
"STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is
available


here
.]