New study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

how about they stop saying announcements in spanish in walmart late at night in nj. not even an english announcement, now its just spanish.

no surprise 4 million illegals voted.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

Serious question to you our anyone else.

What would you find to be the most credible study on illegal voting?

I would be interested in reading it.

I don't have one, but I would like to see the methodology and raw data (where were these people voting) and something about the voting policies of each area and how they determined "Illegal" and what country they were from... and then I'd like to see it replicated.

As you should. Its good form not to accept a study like this without knowing how it was done.

Here is the link to the study.

www.justfactsdaily.com...

It was based on this paper, but I think you need something like JSTOR to view it for free.

www.sciencedirect.com...

The data came from a harvard study, which was a poll that is done every two years.

Each year some of the respondents answer that they are non citizens and they voted.

In 2008

In this 2008 survey of 32,800 respondents, 339 identified themselves as non-citizens, and 38 of these non-citizens checked a box that said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. At face value, this means that 11.2% (38/339) of non-citizens voted in the 2008 election

www.justfactsdaily.com...

2012

They also analyze the 2012 presidential election, and their methods are even more problematic. In this case, 695 people identified themselves as non-citizens in the survey, and 61 of them said they voted or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting.

Same source.

I don't have the answers to how many non citizens say they voted every year, but it seems like each year has a substantial percentage of the admitted non citizens caying they voted, so its not a one off.

a reply to: Grambler
For your review....
Richman paper

. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. ©

a reply to: D8Tee

Interesting. I'm sure I've seen sites that said that was the case. Fake news? Or perhaps it was before Trudeau was elected?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: D8Tee

Interesting. I'm sure I've seen sites that said that was the case. Fake news? Or perhaps it was before Trudeau was elected?

Not fake news. Canada does not have adequate vetting in place, they would do well to adopt the Aussies policies. Canada can't take care of it's own, let alone tens of thousands of economic migrants. Let them fix their own damn countries.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

Serious question to you our anyone else.

What would you find to be the most credible study on illegal voting?

I would be interested in reading it.

Unfortunately, no matter which way it proves out or to what degree the other side will skew it. To Trump's advantage, all that needs to be proven is it's higher than previously thought, in which case, action is justified at the Federal level and will occur, JMO, though.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Sillyolme

Foreign nationals driving in the USA

Yup, had to bring my wife to rent a car in the states.

The only problem with that is that you have to have a valid lic to get a IDP.

My usa lic expired so I couldn't drive or rent a car or get an IDP, so I couldn't drive here in HK anymore either.

It would have been better if I drove but my wife is very pro law and nixed that idea.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

No his findings won't result in anything.
Each state runs their own election. Every four years we have fifty separate elections to determine the president not one national one.
The federal government won't have any input
Any changes in voter registration would to be up to each state.
There are no federal rules each state must abide by.
There are state rules. So no his findings won't mean a thing.
Sorry.

This is a very ignorant post. The findings will help immensely. Every state will indeed have to take their own actions, and now that they will finally have data, there will be no reason not to fix it. Democrats only objection is that "its not happening" and a fake racism argument. Once the data shows it is happening, most citizens are gonna tell them to shove the fake racism accusation up their ass. Cry all you want.

a reply to: D8Tee

Ok so this is the paper the OP study is defending.

First methodology. It used the survey in 2008 and 2010. Here is why the chose the survey the did.
Well its PDF so it won't let me copy and paste right.

I will put it into my words, but encourage everyone to read for themselves to make sure I am not misinterpreting them.

4 reasons this survey was used.

1. big number of respondents.

2. asked about citizenship

3. unlike most surveys, non citizens were asked if they voted.

4. in the 2008 version, participation and registration were verified in almost all states.

It shows that in 2008 they were able to verifiy 40 percent of the non citizens answer if they voted or not, but were forced to take the rest at their word.

It says that no one really said "I am an illegal" Instead they said things like they were waiting on a green card, or "waiting on citizenship". But all of these answers would mean they would not be eligible to vote.

Honestly I believe this study is far more credible than those attempting to debunk it.

I would do more here if I could copy and paste, but I suggest anyone interested in the topic read the paper.

My only criticism is is it fair to extrapolate the percentage of those non citizens surveyed to the general population of non citizens? But I guess that is the problem with every survey.

a reply to: D8Tee

We're still the United STATES of America.
States rights are above federal laws.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

Serious question to you our anyone else.

What would you find to be the most credible study on illegal voting?

I would be interested in reading it.

Unfortunately, no matter which way it proves out or to what degree the other side will skew it. To Trump's advantage, all that needs to be proven is it's higher than previously thought, in which case, action is justified at the Federal level and will occur, JMO, though.

Two points.

First, I will try to be fair, so it matters to me.

Second, I think no spin is necessary. Even a minimal amount of illegals voting should be taken very seriously and investigated and corrective action needs taken.

If the idea that Russia perhaps hacked voter registrations is the enormous threat to our elections that people are claiming, then surely people illegally voting is even more of a threat.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: D8Tee

We're still the United STATES of America.
States rights are above federal laws.

Federal laws most certainly affect States when it comes to voting - how about the Voting Rights Act, for example?

You need to do a bit of research as you have it ass backwards - federal laws override state laws according to your Constitution. Research the Supremacy Clause.

a reply to: face23785

I'm ignorant huh?

Yeah ok.

a reply to: UKTruth

How about medical marijuana???

a reply to: Sillyolme

Very.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

How about medical marijuana???

Federal Law has supremacy over state law.

a reply to: Grambler

Ultimately, the results of our analysis provide a basis for informed reflection concerning the role of non-citizens in U.S. elections. They demonstrate that in spite of de-jure barriers to participation, a small portion of non-citizen immigrants do participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation is at times substantial enough to change important election outcomes including Electoral College votes and Senate races. For those who wish to further restrict participation by non-citizens, however, our results also provide important cautions. Simple resort to voter photo-identification rules is unlikely to be particularly effective.

Good Lord, this needs to be fixed before more Al Frankens are elected.

s. In addition, the analysis suggests that non-citizens' votes have changed significant election outcomes including the assignment of North Carolina's 2008 electoral votes, and the pivotal Minnesota Senate victory of Democrat Al Franken in 2008.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: D8Tee

We're still the United STATES of America.
States rights are above federal laws.

No.

a reply to: UKTruth

The voting rights act have to do with racial discrimination.
It was enacted as legislation because some southern states were trying to keep African Americans from voting.
This study isn't about disenfranchised Americans like the voting rights act.
It's a study to prove trump won the popular vote.
Which he didnt and it's killing him.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yes.