George Orwell’s literary takedown of totalitarianism, “1984,” wasn’t written as a how-to book, but, that’s how Democrats generally use it.
Orwell’s book posits that totalitarian regimes are predicated on lies told so frequently that resisting them becomes more emotionally taxing, more difficult than repeating them, and that falsifying reality – Orwellian “New-speak” – to manipulate public perceptions and behavior is essential to holding power.
Democrats have met and surpassed Orwellian New-speak on matters such as illegal immigration, border security and, now, the decennial Census – among others.
President Donald Trump’s habit of pointing out Democrats’ softness on illegal immigration has born Orwellian fruit. Suddenly, Democrats are talking about “securing” our southern border, but without any physical barriers. The flaw in their rhetoric is its utter lack of sincerity. Democrats have openly encouraged illegal immigration for years.
During the 2018 elections, many Democrats ran on abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE); heavily-Democratic jurisdictions have declared themselves “sanctuary” cities/states; and Democrats resist attempts to deny illegal immigrants jobs, drivers licenses, welfare, SNAP benefits, Medicaid, public housing, subsidized college tuition, unemployment benefits and earned income tax credits.
The bait that attracts illegals unfairly burdens American taxpayers while devaluing the meaning of American citizenship.
“Controversy” over the upcoming 2020 Census provides another example of Orwellian New-speak. After the administration added a census question asking if those polled are U.S. citizens, a flurry of left-wing lawsuits were filed claiming the question constituted “a direct attack on our constitutional democracy,” that would “inject fear and distrust into vulnerable communities.”
The charges are patently false. A “72-Year Rule” prohibits the Census Bureau from disclosing personal information to other agencies, including ICE, until 72 years after its collection. Additionally, census questions already include age, race, sex, sexual orientation, homeownership, employment status, commuting habits, numbers of household toilets – and ethnicity. In that context, a simple citizenship question cannot be intrusive.
Democrats’ motives are doubly disingenuous. First, Democrats know that identifying and discounting illegals will diminish their political influence. After each census, House seats and Electoral College votes are reapportioned based on each state’s population. When illegals are counted as part of their general populations, Democrat-controlled states with large illegal populations have political advantages over states that do not. Various estimates of its illegal population give California, alone, four, six, possibly eight more House seats than its citizen headcount merits.
If congressional districts are reapportioned based solely upon numbers of actual citizens, more will be located in states more likely to vote Republican.
Second, by counting illegal aliens among the general population, Democrats are trying to keep more population-based federal allocations flowing to jurisdictions with large illegal immigrant populations.
In opposing the citizenship question, Democrats are implicitly arguing to continue overpaying federal funds to sanctuary cities and states that explicitly refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.
Encouraging illegal entries and contesting a census citizenship question are proxies for Democrats’ insatiable appetites for other people’s money, new voters and political power. Their attempts to convince Americans otherwise are merely Orwellian New-speak.