Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

Run with that, orange is the new black. It would be easier to befriend a DMV worker but that's getting harder as well. Unless one is young folks getting drivers license without a driving history in other states are scrutinized closely. A twenty year old with a first time license, believable. A 40 year old, not so much. DMV's record the transaction, the driver and DMV clerk as well as the information being entered and documents used for identification and residency, all for later review.

Cheers

 

The one document issued when we are born is the birth certificate. That means the doctor certified we are natives of the USA.

Obama voiced his approval for illegals to vote. This we have recorded on youtube. I posted it in the past and by request only shall do so again.

 

Wait! Hold the phone! Are you saying that Obama hacked the Birth Records office in Hawaii?

Wow.

Lol

Cheers

 

The MSM ignores plenty that it does not want the public to know.

 

I long suspected Obama used forged documents as proof of his birth.

 

Voting is not too important as you see it from what you say.

 

It seems like a good idea for all citizens to be automatically registered to vote; but they couldn't declare R or D. An automatic voter registration could be cross-walked with birth certificates or papers of citizenship, death records, background checks, and residency. People could then have a free choice in the primaries; and it would prevent the ineligible and duplicate voting as well. It's doable right now.

 

With power and money, it's possible.

Cheers

 

Retinal scan. Fingerprints can change over time - especially for those who work with their hands or suffer wounds to their hands.

 

That just might be true. Treat a vote as you treat a 100 dollar bill and it can help solve a very important problem. We must face it that we are overwhelmed by illegal aliens and of course none of them know a way to vote per Democrats.

Obama then



Obama talking to an illegal alien in 2016

 

I don't know about your state, but in my state they have a new thing they call, ironically, "real ID". It requires verification of citizenship, marriage licenses, (originals not photo copies)the whole nine yards. It is an admission of sorts that lots of drivers licenses were given to non eligible people. I hear California has a similar program.

 

Cobsisering the mobey we wate on the military couldn't cost all that much to set up voting locations in war zones.

 

Democrats block it.

 

Ok, we go to vote and they have a laptop and pull up our name, place and date of birth and photograph. I am sold.

 

Yes, every single one of the illegals can hack in. Thank you for the help.

 

Sorry, I don't think CA wants to halt illegal alien voting.

 

Only indirectly. The US military doesn't require citizenship to be an officer but all officers in the US military are granted a "secret" security clearance and the security clearance requires US citizenship.

That's an interesting requirement because the security clearance doesn't imply access to secret information. Access requires both the security clearance and a "need to know" the information.

Many officers serve in functions where secret information is never applicable to their assignment so why are non-citizens denied these job positions in the US military where a secret security clearance is unnecessary? This appears to be discrimination based upon national origin that is unconstitutional.

 

I've boarded aircraft and flown around the country without any "papers" because the aircraft have been privately owned and "I don't need no stinkin' papers."

You can drive a car without "paper" as long as you don't use public roads. You can even drive on public roads without having a license on you at the time. If you follow the traffic laws you won't be pulled over so no one would know or care and even if you get pulled over all that happens is the officer gives you a piece of paper, maybe, and maybe they don't. That can be a "race dependent" determination by the officer.

You can't get into my house with papers because I don't know you and your papers don't mean a damn thing to me.

The Democrats can impose any criteria they want at their convention because it's an invitation only private event.

One thing a person should never need a piece of paper for is exercising a Constitutionally protected Right.

 

Why hasn't Trump demanded that the FBI arrest the perpetrators?

 

You need a piece of paper to buy a gun and in CA, ammo. If I'm correct owning a gun is a constitutionally protcted right.

 

The 2nd Amendment states you have a "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" and it doesn't say anything about commerce in arms that can be regulated by the government. You don't need a piece of paper to "Keep and Bear Arms" in the United States.

We can also note that the Second Amendment doesn't refer to firearms at all and instead simply uses the very broad term of "arms" in referring to what's protected. Congress was left with the authority to define what types of "arms" are specifically covered although at least some reasonable "firearms" must be included in that overall group of arms. Not all firearms require protection under the 2nd Amendment but, for pragmatic reasons based upon current technology, some firearms would for the sole purpose of self-defense.

If the technology changes so that "non-lethal" weapon is invented that's equal to or superior to a firearm for the purposes of self-defense then the firearm could be banned because it's a lethal weapon that can cause the unnecessary death of a person. Lethal force cannot be justified if non-lethal force provides equal or superior protection.

 

I did some more investigation and want to give this a proper response.

This study found that 6.4% of illegals voted for Obama in 2008 and 2.2% in 2012. 80% voted for Obama. With 20 million non-citizens in the US it only gives Hillary 830,000 votes which means that she still wins by more than 2 million votes in the popular vote. If we take the 11 million immigration figure it falls to less than 500,000.

The authors of the study itself condemn Donald Trump and online conservatives for blowing the results of this study out of proportion, and so these authors you are citing don't approve of this very thread, especially since it has such a high margin of error that it ranges from 32,000 and 2.8 million with a 830,000 estimate. Conservatives then quote the highest end figure which so so high simply because of the massive margin of error.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/

But there are massive problems with the study itself. It is an online survey which means respondents select themselves and the results are skewed to whoever responded to the survey. Online surveys are known to be highly inaccurate and not to the trusted. That alone should refute the results. This study was of 38,000 people and less than 1% or 340 of them were non-citizens, and only 20 of them claiming to vote. This is just such a tiny number out of 38,000 people that the margin of error estimated by the authors themselves is so high. The authors themselves admit that their study greatly exaggerated the numbers of voting illegals and only wanted to show at least some voted.

In addition the study had only one question identifying citizenship. This is a big mistake because this can easily explain the 20 illegals claiming to vote out of 38,000 total respondents, as maybe some voting citizens accidentally identified themselves as non-citizens.

These people were later studied even further and out of those 85 illegals who were most likely to actually be illegal none of them voted in the mid-terms. And out of 121 illegals in one group between 20 and 36 in different years had switched between identifying as citizens and non-citizens. This threw more doubt on these results. The fact that there are so many questions over how many of 340 were actually illegal and whether they correctly identified themselves just destroys this whole study.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/upshot/illegal-voting-claims-and-why-they-dont-hold-up.html

Other studies have found very different results. Richman and Earnest found only five noncitizen voters out of 32,800 in 2008 and in 2010 it was 13 out of 55,400 respondents who voted.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-steal-your-election-20141031-column.html

 

I'm curious what the electorate would look like, without the illegal voting done by Democrats. They would somehow have even less power than now, which doesn't even seem possible.

 

All but the most radical gun supporters would accept a Star Trek style phaser that merely stuns, if we had technology that effective and safe. The issue to most is, you have a right to defend yourself, and currently guns are the only tool that a novice combatant can use to do that effectively. If technology can ever deliver a truly effective stun weapon, that will change everything.

 

Well researched and presented. There was a thread started in Current Events that clearly debunked the overstated and flawed premises in the OP report but it was, not sure why, moved to the Belief/Opinion section. My .02 dollars, I would suggest starting a new thread in this section as this post will likely get quickly buried by partizan bias and nonsense. Thank you your time & for this post.