Put Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens to a Vote? (Douglas: 2014, university)

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

I could go look for it but my feeling is why go back and dredge up information for people who clearly don't do much reading outside the sphere of their own preset belief system, and who are too lazy to research it themselves? It's much easier to make bold unfounded statements about things and then "challenge" others to prove them wrong.

Unfounded, really? I cited you a government document in black & white, showing you're wrong about "instant" permanent residency, but you insist you're correct.

But heck ya...if someone is claiming that 2 million illegals are voting and somehow getting away with it, rational folks aren't gonna accept that without substantiation. It's worth noting that the "blue ribbon panel" headed by Kris Kobach in the first year of the Trump admin spent a LOT of resources looking at this and all type of voter fraud. Guess what they came up with?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-fraud/617069/

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Asylum granted to 10 million? Please show your data.

Theres nothing stopping Uncle Joe from doing that with a single stroke of his pen amigo - like I said a million times already which you have conveniently ignored, it wasn't done for DACA that you kept babbling about because 600,000 new voters Uncle Joe and his minions could gain is a lot less than those he would have alienated but it's a different ball game when we're talking about 10,000,000 or so. And in this case he wouldn't even have to use dirty words like "amnesty" because they're here for asylum jefe, asylum! Mark my word amigo, there will be a huge push for that in the near future, and getting illegals legal documents is one of the prepping steps.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Unfounded, really? I cited you a government document in black & white, showing you're wrong about "instant" permanent residency, but you insist you're correct.

But heck ya...if someone is claiming that 2 million illegals are voting and somehow getting away with it, rational folks aren't gonna accept that without substantiation. It's worth noting that the "blue ribbon panel" headed by Kris Kobach in the first year of the Trump admin spent a LOT of resources looking at this and all type of voter fraud. Guess what they came up with?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-fraud/617069/

We weren't discussing "instant permanent residency" you were proclaiming that nearly zero, or something like that, non citizens were voting. Your adjustment of status vs grant of asylum semantics business was a sidebar that I've already spoken to.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

We weren't discussing "instant permanent residency" you were proclaiming that nearly zero, or something like that, non citizens were voting. Your adjustment of status vs grant of asylum semantics business was a sidebar that I've already spoken to.

Well...I refuted that point also. Are you questioning that the Kris Kobach panel, with all the muscle of the Trump admin behind it, missed all these illegals voting? If anything, they would have had the incentive to the contrary...which would have provided ample election fodder for them!

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Any citation on that? I can't seem to find anything.

There are about 21 million noncitizens in the US (reference), so roughly 10% of those voting, despite the obvious risk and non-obvious incentives (voting famously has a negative utility).

No, the studies did not estimate 10 percent, they estimate under 15 percent, but not zero. I wouldn't apply the negative utility to foreigners, many of whom could find a number of reasons to cast a ballot in the United States, especially with the likelihood of getting caught at nearly zero.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Well...I refuted that point also. Are you questioning that the Kris Kobach panel, with all the muscle of the Trump admin behind it, missed all these illegals voting? If anything, they would have had the incentive to the contrary...which would have provided ample election fodder for them!

You refuted it? You posted an Atlantic article about a commission that looked into "widespread" or organized voter fraud in the 2016 "national" election. So what? I haven't made any such claim. But tell me, how would you go about uncovering fraudulent votes if you don't know who actually cast the ballot or which voter registrations are not connected to a citizen?

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Theres nothing stopping Uncle Joe from doing that with a single stroke of his pen amigo - like I said a million times already which you have conveniently ignored, it wasn't done for DACA that you kept babbling about because 600,000 new voters Uncle Joe and his minions could gain is a lot less than those he would have alienated but it's a different ball game when we're talking about 10,000,000 or so. And in this case he wouldn't even have to use dirty words like "amnesty" because they're here for asylum jefe, asylum! Mark my word amigo, there will be a huge push for that in the near future, and getting illegals legal documents is one of the prepping steps.

The way it's done in the meantime is to simply not refer those unlawfully present to an Immigration Judge, not use expedited removal, and not execute active removal orders. All done within the purview of the executive branch. And that's pretty much what's happening.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

You refuted it? You posted an Atlantic article about a commission that looked into "widespread" or organized voter fraud in the 2016 "national" election. So what? I haven't made any such claim. But tell me, how would you go about uncovering fraudulent votes if you don't know who actually cast the ballot or which voter registrations are not connected to a citizen?

^You don't think that the panel had far greater access to data including the ability to interview election officials, than you do? It was quite a big thing at that time, because Trump refused to admit that he had lost the popular vote in 2016 (sound familiar?) and was convinced that illegals must've voted. Of course the panel disbanded in a year, which didn't get any publicity, because it didn't find anything.

And oh by the way, there are multiple sources you can look up, including the official report...I just happened to pull up the Atlantic article first.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

I could go look for it but my feeling is why go back and dredge up information for people who clearly don't do much reading outside the sphere of their own preset belief system, and who are too lazy to research it themselves? It's much easier to make bold unfounded statements about things and then "challenge" others to prove them wrong.

We are asking you to give us some reading outside the sphere of our preset beliefs and yet you seem unwilling to provide that information.

Here is what I find if I search google for "millions of noncitizens illegally voting":

Fact-check: Are 22 million immigrants 'voting illegally' in the U.S.?

Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections

Some Noncitizens Do Wind Up Registered To Vote, But Usually Not On Purpose

I know google can tailor its results to the user, but I get a similar mix. If I add "+Newsmax", which is the most aggressively right-wing media outlet I am familiar with, I get this:

Newsmax Issues Retraction And Apology To Dominion Employee Over Election Stories

If I restrict the search to the newsmax domain, I get this:

Yes, Illegal Aliens Are Voting

Which includes this paragraph:

"There’s been a study out of Old Dominion University that shows it is enough of a vote to sway elections, one way or another. It may have resulted in election, specifically, of Al Franken to the United States Senate, and all the bad things politically or public policy-wise that happened as a result, like Obamacare and things like that."

Which leads to this paper

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. 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.

as well as this this clarification from the University itself:

The study cited a survey that suggested that a minuscule percentage of non-citizens voted and that they had the potential to swing very close elections. It generated the usual genteel academic back-and-forth: Professors at other universities publishing papers challenging the findings, Richman writing his own response to the criticism.

and

What took him completely aback was the ferocity of the public debate about the study - and the distortion of the findings - before and after the recent presidential election. Some conservative commentators, extrapolating that noncitizens voted disproportionately for Democrats, cited the research as proof of massive electoral cheating. President-elect Donald Trump did not mention the study, but said in a tweet that millions of people voted illegally.

On the other side, liberal pundits attacked the research, sometimes challenging the reputation of Richman and his colleagues.

FWIW, the same author has thoughts on the 2020 election.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

^You don't think that the panel had far greater access to data including the ability to interview election officials, than you do? It was quite a big thing at that time, because Trump refused to admit that he had lost the popular vote in 2016 (sound familiar?) and was convinced that illegals must've voted. Of course the panel disbanded in a year, which didn't get any publicity, because it didn't find anything.

And oh by the way, there are multiple sources you can look up, including the official report...I just happened to pull up the Atlantic article first.

Again, your article is a red herring since the discussion wasn't about widespread voter fraud in the 2016 national election. And, as suspected, nothing to offer on how you would uncover general voter fraud if nobody knows who cast the ballot and nobody knows how many people checked off "citizen" when they are not. I can tell you this, you may be able to compare each voter to their corresponding SSN or DL number and then verify each one, but that's a HUGE undertaking and it still wouldn't tell you if the person identified actually cast the ballot, and it wouldn't tell you if someone else didn't steal their identity.