Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 154

Thread: Over Three Million Illegal Immigrants Voted in 2016 Election

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    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 The problem isn't voter fraud- it is outdated voter lists.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    Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.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/politi...htmlstory.html


    Link to the actual report: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/leg...trationpdf.pdf
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2016 at 01:46 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Bitter? Perhaps, but only at those who try to pass their nativism, nationalism, and Progressivism off as Liberty. Those kinds of lies are toxic to the cause of Freedom, Justice, Mercy, and Liberty.
    Toxic liars like me?

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Toxic liars like me?
    PierzStyx is having fun wasting your time, he is the one who doesn't belong here, being an Anarcho-Globalist.
    I suggest you just ignore him.
    I wish this site had an Ignore this user button.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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!



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    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.


    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 by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2016 at 03:47 PM.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You sound like a globalist. You and Hillary have something in common.
    Actually what @PierzStyx is speaking of is Individualism- the exact opposite of globalism.
    There is no spoon.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Actually what @PierzStyx 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.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    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 @PierzStyx is that both globalism and nationalism do not equate to personal freedom but to the abolishment of freedom and God-given rights.
    There is no spoon.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    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?

  13. #71
    "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 by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2016 at 05:21 PM.

  14. #72
    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/11/28/...igrant-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.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Maybe less than 100.
    Behold: a Fantasy-Land Kook.

  17. #74
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.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.o...ican-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 by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2016 at 05:36 PM.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Behold: a Fantasy-Land Kook.
    Thank you for providing more evidence of three (or 17 is it now?) million illegal immigrants voting.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    We will all be behind his wall if it is actually built.
    Now that sounds like Ron Paul.

  20. #77

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    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 by PierzStyx; 11-30-2016 at 06:01 PM.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    What I am getting from @PierzStyx 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.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That is absolutely delightful. Even delicious. Evidence proving voter fraud is more or less a nativist fantasy.
    Last edited by PierzStyx; 11-30-2016 at 06:24 PM.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by ifthenwouldi View Post
    Now that sounds like Ron Paul.
    It was in fact Ron's exact argument!

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I am just presenting the question for realism's sake. Nothing to do with justice, just reality. If these illegal immigrants people are present in this country, they overcame far more difficult barriers to accomplish that than the barriers present to them voting.

    If you believe that people are, indeed, capable of illegally immigrating over vast distances and guarded national borders, then it would be silly to believe these same people are not capable of illegally doing something as simple, easy, and indeed encouraged as voting.
    A rational possibility. But it is only a hypothesis. Where is the evidence? So far Zippy has been kicking your tail in that department.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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?
    I don't know, Pierz, you seem to have thought this out very thoroughly and philosophically, but as for me, when I'm, say, in Italy for a month or two, I don't feel the need or the right to tell them how to run things. No desire for any input at all.

    I do believe I have inalienable rights and all that jazz. I do believe in consent of the governed (and would even add the modifier "unanimous"!). It just seems reasonable to let the long-time Italians decide how to run Italy. Even if I were to permanently relocate there, I'd feel the same way. The ones who have been there for ten, twenty generations, it's their country. They get the say. I wouldn't feel done wrong by in the least if they said "you've got to wait a few generations. We'll let your grand-kids vote." Or even if they said "Sorry, but it's getting crowded here. The traffic's horrible and we're out of cobblestone. You're going to have to leave." Hey, no worries! Thanks for having me while you did and it was a nice stay! That's just how I feel.

    Maybe my feelings are wrong. Philosophically wrong or something. But that's how I feel.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Where is the evidence?
    There's a mountain of evidence, a ton of documented proof, as well as just plain common sense.

  29. #85
    Mountains. Arizona found two whole examples in the last ten years. Now we just need to find the other 1,999,998 more.

    http://archive.azcentral.com/news/po...raud-rare.html

    Illegal immigrant vote-fraud cases rare in Arizona


    Arizona has spent enormous amounts of time and money waging war against voter fraud, citing the specter of illegal immigrants’ casting ballots.

    State officials from Gov. Jan Brewer to Attorney General Tom Horne to Secretary of State Ken Bennett swear it’s a problem.

    At an August news conference, Horne and Bennett cited voter-fraud concerns as justification for continuing a federal-court fight over state voter-ID requirements. And some Republican lawmakers have used the same argument to defend a package of controversial new election laws slated to go before voters in November 2014.

    But when state officials are pushed for details, the numbers of actual cases and convictions vary and the descriptions of the alleged fraud become foggy or based on third-hand accounts.

    An examination of voter-fraud cases in Maricopa County shows those involving illegal immigrants are nearly non-existent, and have been since before the changes to voter-ID requirements were enacted in 2004.

    In response to an Arizona Republic records request, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office provided a list of 21 criminal cases since January 2005 in which the suspect was charged with a felony related to voter fraud. A search of court records found 13 other cases.

    Of the 34 Maricopa County cases, two of the suspects were in the country illegally and 12 were not citizens but living in the U.S. legally, court records showed. One of the suspect’s legal-residency status was unclear from the records.

    The non-citizens came from around the world — Indonesia, Canada, Mexico, Yugoslavia, the Philippines and Thailand. Most had been living legally in the U.S. for decades. Several stated in court documents that they thought they were permitted to vote because they were legal permanent residents of the United States.

    None was convicted of a felony or given any jail time. A couple of the cases were dismissed; the other suspects pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and served a few months of probation.

    Eighteen of the cases involved convicted felons who had lost the right to vote. In several of the cases, the felons told the court no one had ever explained to them that they no longer could vote even after serving their time. One said he was sent an early ballot in the mail and thought he was permitted to vote.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2016 at 06:30 PM.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I don't know, Pierz, you seem to have thought this out very thoroughly and philosophically, but as for me, when I'm, say, in Italy for a month or two, I don't feel the need or the right to tell them how to run things. No desire for any input at all.

    I do believe I have inalienable rights and all that jazz. I do believe in consent of the governed (and would even add the modifier "unanimous"!). It just seems reasonable to let the long-time Italians decide how to run Italy. Even if I were to permanently relocate there, I'd feel the same way. The ones who have been there for ten, twenty generations, it's their country. They get the say. I wouldn't feel done wrong by in the least if they said "you've got to wait a few generations. We'll let your grand-kids vote." Or even if they said "Sorry, but it's getting crowded here. The traffic's horrible and we're out of cobblestone. You're going to have to leave." Hey, no worries! Thanks for having me while you did and it was a nice stay! That's just how I feel.

    Maybe my feelings are wrong. Philosophically wrong or something. But that's how I feel.
    Staying in Italy a month doesn't make you an immigrant.

    It is perfectly fine for you to feel that way and decide to not vote. But that is irrelevant to whether you should be forcing how you feel people should live on anyone else. You have no right to do that.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    There's a mountain of evidence, a ton of documented proof, as well as just plain common sense.
    I'm literally begging here. Give me some good ones.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Staying in Italy a month doesn't make you an immigrant.
    I specifically said: I'd feel the same way if I stayed a year. Or ten years. Or a lifetime.

    It just seems rude and entitlement-mentality to barge into someone else's country and demand things from them.

    It is perfectly fine for you to feel that way.
    Well thank you!

    But that is irrelevant to whether you should be forcing how you feel people should live on anyone else. You have no right to do that.
    I am not forcing anything on anyone, much less forcing them how to live! Wow!



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I'm literally begging here. Give me some good ones.
    No time. More important things to work on. You can find it yourself easily enough.

  35. #90
    You ignored most of what I said. But I'll respond to a few of your points.


    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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?
    We have laws for a reason. That includes immigration laws. If you think we shouldn't have borders, that anyone at all should be allowed to vote in our elections, then you need to first work to change those laws. And you'll probably have to get others on board with your idea, but first work toward changing the damn law.

    Until then, you are advocating for law-breaking. Illegal immigrants are not here legally. It's not fair to the TONS of immigrants who do it the right way - by going through the legal process - to reward those who thumb their nose at our laws and at the other immigrants who do things honestly.

    Now you have another thing in common with Hillary. And most lefties, who agree with rewarding those disregard for the law.


    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.
    There's a difference between basic human rights, constitutional rights... and privileges. You are acting as if voting is a basic human right. Is that what you think?

    You say you're not a globalist, but the only way your thoughts above work in a practical sense is to have no borders.... one government for all. So you are contradicting yourself.

    Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Do you really support rounding up 12 million illegal immigrants and deporting them?
    By jllundqu in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 332
    Last Post: 03-05-2016, 09:17 AM
  2. Rick Perry gives $33 million tuition assistance to illegal immigrants in Texas colleges
    By r3volution in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2011, 07:37 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 08:19 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2007, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •