Over Three Million Illegal Immigrants Voted in 2016 Election

Election Expert: "We now have 4 million... ineligible [illegal] voters on the rolls!"

Ah, well, I like to err on the cautious, conservative side. 3 million, 4 million,... :)

People who have died or moved out of precincts and not had their names removed from voter rolls is not the same as three million illegal immigrants voting. The problem isn't voter fraud- it is outdated voter lists. From the report:

It's titled "Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade."

Page one of the 12-page report has several bullet points:

Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.


"The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems," the organization wrote.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...mp-pew-report-voter-1476945665-htmlstory.html


Link to the actual report: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/le...ets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf
 
Last edited:
not the same as three million illegal immigrants voting.

How many do you think it is, Juan? Five million?

Probably it could be 17 million.

There's 30 to 40,000,000 illegal immigrants in the America currently, right? So if only half of them bother to vote....

And how many much, much more than that voted this time, against the anti-Mexican demagogue who CNN told them called them all rapists? They were energized! Probably many of them even voted more than one time!
 
Yes- 17 million out of eleven million illegal immigrants cast ballots in the last election. They had a higher voter turnout than any other group in the whole country.
:rolleyes:

You have still not shown a single one actually casting a ballot (though your claimed numbers keep on rising- maybe next week it will be 30 million illegal immigrants voting- and then 100 million).
 
Last edited:
Sure, if you believe Thomas Jefferson or John Locke were globalists. The revolutionary idea that all people are created equal with the same equal rights no matter where they're from is the foundation of the Lockean ideals that are the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. It is also the foundation of the modern idea of liberty.

Isn't it always fascinating how the real promoters of liberty are always accused of being "globalists" by the oppressive nationalists? Liberty is universal.

And there is no difference between world governments or national ones. They're both oppressive regimes. Replacing an oppressive world government with an oppressive national one means nothing. You're still oppressed.

I have little to nothing in common with Clinton. But if you do not recognize the Declaration and universal inalienable human rights then you have more in common with her than you think you do. You're just Progressives with different goals.

I never once argued (or even thought) that all people are not created equal with the same basic human rights. So that's your first straw man. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have nations. I thought most of us agree here that government is better when it's more local and closer to the people. Advocating for a world government is insane, even if things weren't as bad as they actually are.... but considering how thoroughly corrupt and evil the 'leaders' of this world are... promoting world government (the NWO) is beyond crazy, it's the stupidest thing one can do.
 
Actually what [MENTION=33507]PierzStyx[/MENTION] is speaking of is Individualism- the exact opposite of globalism.

He seems to be open to the idea of world government, and as I said, he sounded like a globalist. But I think we should let him speak for himself.
 
He seems to be open to the idea of world government, and as I said, he sounded like a globalist. But I think we should let him speak for himself.

What I am getting from [MENTION=33507]PierzStyx[/MENTION] is that both globalism and nationalism do not equate to personal freedom but to the abolishment of freedom and God-given rights.
 
Yes- 17 million out of eleven million illegal immigrants cast ballots in the last election. They had a higher voter turnout than any other group in the whole country.

I will politely ask you again: How many do you think it is, Juan?

Everyone agrees that many, many illegal immigrants voted in this last election. Everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees on that. No reasonable, sane person would disagree with that obviously true statement. So what is your best estimate of how many voted?
 
"Everyone agrees". Who are everyone? No evidence is presented to show it occurred at all though claims have been made. My best estimate? Less than 1000. Maybe less than 100.

Still waiting on your evidence.
 
Last edited:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/11/28...bted-concerns-about-illegal-immigrant-voting/

Before Trump Tweets, Appeals Court Doubted Concerns About Illegal Immigrant Voting

Speculation that vast numbers of illegal immigrants are on voter rolls isn’t just coming from President-elect Donald Trump’s Twitter account.

A similar concern was aired by Republican Kansas officials in a recent case before skeptical federal appeals court judges weighing a Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration at state DMV offices.

Mr. Trump’s tweeted Sunday that he had won the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

No evidence has emerged of widespread voting by illegal immigrants. That lack of evidence has been a major factor weighing against Kansas as it’s sought to defend the proof-of-citizenship mandate.

The American Civil Liberties Union this year sued the state over the law, which requires people registering to vote while applying for a driver’s license to show documentary proof of citizenship. The suit alleged the law was preventing thousands of otherwise qualified Kansas residents “from exercising their fundamental right to vote.”

After a federal judge temporarily barred enforcement of the law, lawyers for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach took the case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing in a brief:

The threat of noncitizens registering to vote in Kansas is not hypothetical. As explained above, evidence from just one of Kansas’s 105 counties demonstrated that prior to K.S.A. § 25-2309(l) going into effect, eleven noncitizens successfully registered to vote; and after it went into effect another fourteen were prevented from registering. These 25 cases are just the tip of the iceberg in Sedgwick County. And when all 105 counties are considered, the number of aliens on the voter rolls is likely to be in the hundreds, if not thousands.

The appeals court wasn’t convinced of an iceberg lurking beneath those couple-dozen examples and refused to undo the injunction. Wrote 10th Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, a President George W. Bush appointee, in an October-issued opinion:

[W]e reject as based on conjecture Secretary Kobach’s invitation to consider as “just the tip of the iceberg” the twenty-five cases in Sedgwick County of aliens registering or attempting to register. The assertion that the “number of aliens on the voter rolls is likely to be in the hundreds, if not thousands” is pure speculation….

On the other side of the equation is the near certainty that without the preliminary injunction over 18,000 U.S. citizens in Kansas will be disenfranchised for purposes of the 2016 federal elections—elections less than one month away.

Though the Kansas law was blocked leading up to the November election, it hasn’t been struck down for good. In late October, following 10th Circuit orders, U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson of Kansas City allowed the state to take three months to conduct a statistical analysis that would more precisely determine how many noncitizens are on Kansas’s registration rolls.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-billion-ballots-cast/?utm_term=.efe747ce0ab3

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

<snip>
To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.

To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.


Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.

Incidents listed at link. None identified as illegal immigrants.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/misleading-myth-voter-fraud-american-elections
24 journalism students at twelve universities reviewed some 2,000 public records and identified just six cases of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2012.

Under Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department searched for voter fraud. But in the first three years of the program, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. Out of 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections held during that period, the rate of voter fraud was a miniscule 0.00000132 percent!

No state considering or passing restrictive voter identification laws has documented an actual problem with voter fraud. In litigation over the new voter identification laws in Wisconsin, Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania, election officials testified they have never seen cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Indiana and Pennsylvania stipulated in court that they had experienced zero instances of voter fraud.

When federal authorities challenged voter identification laws in South Carolina and Texas, neither state provided any evidence of voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that could be deterred by requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls.

In the contested 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election, a Superior Court judge ruled invalid just 25 ballots, constituting 0.0009 percent of the 2,812,675 cast. Many were absentee ballots mailed as double votes or in the names of deceased people, but the judge did not find all were fraudulently cast. When King County prosecutors charged seven defendants, the lawyer for one 83-year old woman said his client “simply did not know what to do with the absentee ballot after her husband of 63 years, Earl, passed away” just before the election, so she signed his name and mailed the ballot.

A leaked report from the Milwaukee Police Department found that data entry errors, typographical errors, procedural missteps, misapplication of the rules, and the like accounted for almost all reported problems during the 2004 presidential election.

When the South Carolina State Election Commission investigated a list of 207 allegedly fraudulent votes in the 2010 election, it found simple human errors in 95 percent of the cases the state’s highest law enforcement official had reported as fraud.

A study by the Northeast Ohio Media Group of 625 reported voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2012 election found that nearly all cases forwarded to county prosecutors were caused by voter confusion or errors by poll workers.
 
Last edited:
NjIjKG8.png
 
I never once argued (or even thought) that all people are not created equal with the same basic human rights. So that's your first straw man. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have nations. I thought most of us agree here that government is better when it's more local and closer to the people. Advocating for a world government is insane, even if things weren't as bad as they actually are.... but considering how thoroughly corrupt and evil the 'leaders' of this world are... promoting world government (the NWO) is beyond crazy, it's the stupidest thing one can do.

Who promoted world government?

In the first post you quoted I laid out the simple facts. If government can only be at the consent of the governed then by what moral logic can you justify keeping immigrants, illegal or otherwise, from voting? Do they not live here? Are they not taxed? Do they not have the same inalienable rights you do to consent to their own government and have a voice in how it rules them?

If you think you can treat people differently based on their immigration status, if you think it right to exercise governmental authority over them and deny them a voice in that government, then you may not be saying you think some people are born with inferior rights to you, but you are saying it with your actions. You are saying that human rights are not universal to all people, but that you have more rights and powers than others, to control them, their property, their labor, and their lives without giving them voice in their government, without giving them their Creator-given right to consent or refuse consent to your rule. So it isn't a Straw Man at all if you believe anyone ruled by the government should be denied the ability to vote in it. Actions speak louder than words.

Though many here will trumpet the logic of the Enlightenment, such arguments such as universal human rights and Natural Law is at odds with the nationalist dogma they hold.

And I'm not a globalist. The reality is that national government or world government, it is all the same. A globalist government, if such a thing is even possible (it never has been), would be no more or less capable of oppressing you than a national government.The distinction is irrelevant ultimately. I'm not advocating for globalist government. I'm saying neither globalist nor nationalist are good. They're both equally bad. Pretending like one is better than the other doesn't make sense. Everything you fear might happen in a globalist state actually exists in the nation-state.
 
Last edited:
What I am getting from [MENTION=33507]PierzStyx[/MENTION] is that both globalism and nationalism do not equate to personal freedom but to the abolishment of freedom and God-given rights.

Double Bingo.

What I am talking about is Individualism. The rights of the individual supersede everything else because it is the individual that matters. Not the State, irregardless of whether it is Nationalist or Globalist. Such a distinction is irrelevant. They both end in subjection.
 
Back
Top