Can Trump end the "Anchor Baby" policy with an executive order? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14961869
Pants-of-dog wrote:That was a weird hodge podge of misunderstanding, strawmen, and wrong claims.

There are illegals in the USA. They are being governed insofar as they are also subject to laws, use services, etc.


Not a very convincing evasion to avoid replying to my post.
You don’t find the bolded part of your comment rather ironic such a thing is allowed to exist to the point we pass laws for them? The future will be correctly convinced we were stark raving lunatics.
#14961903
One Degree wrote:Not a very convincing evasion to avoid replying to my post.


Except I did reply to your post.

You don’t find the bolded part of your comment rather ironic such a thing is allowed to exist to the point we pass laws for them? The future will be correctly convinced we were stark raving lunatics.


Sure, but it is still a true fact that the US has many illegal immigrants who are being governed.
#14961910
Thank God you folks are not libertarians nor constitutionals. I am glad you would never support the republican party with its HUGE tea party wing. Libertarians, constitutionals and republicans do not believe in taxation without representation.
#14961951
XogGyux wrote:Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and tentatively accept your proposition for the sake of argument. Let’s assume there is rampant voter fraud... If that were true, this would make Trump the single stupidest, most incompetent person to have ever existed for not taking serious action to fix this problem. So your point is mute.

Now... lets get back to reality. What IS a real problem is outside interference from powers such as Russia in our democracy. And Trump is taking no action either. Thus he is incopetent and stupid.

Either way, does not look very good for him. :lol:

No One has the ability to prevent people from disobeying the law.
#14962021
One Degree wrote:California allows illegals to vote in school elections and get driver’s license, but we are to believe they enforce them not voting in other elections? Come on. How do you even know when there is no attempt at verification process and an obvious bias to allow them full citizenship rights?
It’s like having a pedophile for a babysitter and only taking his word if he is abusing your child.

Your logic is flawed.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Breaking baby’s neck is simple and easy... am I to believe that you don’t break baby’s neck on a daily basis?
You are a baby killer.
This is what its called Reduction ad absurdum.
You seem to be proposing that because you think it would be easy to commit voter fraud, that is somehow evidence of rampant voter fraud. That is absurd.
You don’t get to claim rampant voter fraud just because you think it might be easy to do so in the same way I don’t get to call you a murderer because I think it would be easy for you to do so. You catch my point? If you want to claim rampant voter fraud, get evidence of rampant voter fraud.
Just to point out how ludicrous some of stupid trump’s claim are... It was estimated that about 2.4-2.6 undocumented immigrants lived in California, this number was down trending so the current number could be lower. Trump claimed “more than 3 million illegals voted fraudulently in 2016”. Do you see a problem with the math :knife: ? You would need that 100% of those 2.4-2.6 millions, many of which cannot possibly vote (e.g. children?) to vote, and then add another 500k or so, to arrive to the stupid number that trump got out of his ass.
There is a reason why he just makes the claim and does nothing. It is a stupid bogus claim, he cannot do anything because there is really nothing to fix, there is no rampant voter fraud as he claim. If there was.... he should be doing something, otherwise he is culprit and complice of the crime.
#14962069
You would also need to believe that someone who is here illegally and who is hiding from the law, would walk into an official polling place and face the authorities over something as trivial (for them) as voting.

They stand nothing to gain by doing it. Both parties deport them like crazy.
#14962077
XogGyux wrote:Your logic is flawed.
Allow me to demonstrate:
Breaking baby’s neck is simple and easy... am I to believe that you don’t break baby’s neck on a daily basis?
You are a baby killer.
This is what its called Reduction ad absurdum.
You seem to be proposing that because you think it would be easy to commit voter fraud, that is somehow evidence of rampant voter fraud. That is absurd.
You don’t get to claim rampant voter fraud just because you think it might be easy to do so in the same way I don’t get to call you a murderer because I think it would be easy for you to do so. You catch my point? If you want to claim rampant voter fraud, get evidence of rampant voter fraud.
Just to point out how ludicrous some of stupid trump’s claim are... It was estimated that about 2.4-2.6 undocumented immigrants lived in California, this number was down trending so the current number could be lower. Trump claimed “more than 3 million illegals voted fraudulently in 2016”. Do you see a problem with the math :knife: ? You would need that 100% of those 2.4-2.6 millions, many of which cannot possibly vote (e.g. children?) to vote, and then add another 500k or so, to arrive to the stupid number that trump got out of his ass.
There is a reason why he just makes the claim and does nothing. It is a stupid bogus claim, he cannot do anything because there is really nothing to fix, there is no rampant voter fraud as he claim. If there was.... he should be doing something, otherwise he is culprit and complice of the crime.


When we see a pattern of a child torturing animals, we should be concerned people will be next. When we see someone repeatedly lighting matches and staring at them, we should be concerned when he becomes a volunteer fireman. When we see Democrats increasing rights for illegals they should not have, we should be concerned they are allowing them to vote. There is nothing reduction ad absurdum in this argument.
We know Democrats in areas of California have the political power to pull this off without detection. For example, we know they have records of who votes. What is stopping them from having illegals vote as these people? I would love to see them publish the names of all voters and see how many people who didn’t vote are surprised to find out they did. I am sure the Democrats who actually run the elections are capable of more sophisticated methods than my simple example.
Patterns of behavior do indicate intentions.
#14962166
@One Degree

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illeg ... -election/

    Did 5.7 Million ‘Illegal Immigrants’ Vote in the 2008 U.S. Election?

    Credible evidence suggests that 5.7 million illegal immigrants might have voted in the 2008 election.

    Rating: False

    On 20 June 2017, the Twitter account of the morning show “Fox & Friends” tweeted a significant sounding bit of news:

      As many as 5.7 million illegal immigrants might have voted in the 2008 election, report finds.

    A more accurate tweet, if it could fit, might be:

      The Washington Times is reporting that a web site named “JustFacts.com” has concluded that a widely-discredited 2014 study arguing up to 2.8 million non-citizens voted in the 2008 presidential election (based on the extrapolation of 38 survey responses from people who may have voted as non-citizens) has been unfairly debunked by “liberal fact checkers” and that, in reality, the number could be as high as 5.7 million.

    The Original Study

    That 2014 study, published in the journal Electoral Studies and authored by Jesse Richman, Gulshan Chattha, and David Earnest at Old Dominion University, made waves when the researchers first described their results in a Washington Post column that inspired three different rebuttals — and one additional rebuttal to those rebuttals, as well as a disclaimer about the disputed nature of the research paper itself.

    In this study, the authors used data collected by Internet polling firms for a Harvard University initiative known as the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, or CCES:

      The 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) were conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix of Palo Alto, CA as an internet-based survey using a sample selected to mirror the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population.

      In both years survey data was collected in two waves: pre-election in October, and then post-election in November. The questionnaire asked more than 100 questions regarding electoral participation, issue preferences, and candidate choices.

    The thrust of their work was to demonstrate that some people checked off that they were both non-citizens and that they voted, in some cases going so far as to describe the candidate they voted for. As a check of their work, they used information provided by CCES from a research firm named Catalyst to verify that people who said they voted actually voted:

      Validation of registration and voting was performed by the CCES research team in collaboration with the firm Catalyst. Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalyst matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database.

    Out of the 38 cases from 2008 in which non-citizens claimed to have voted (or had a vote validated they didn’t admit to in the survey), the authors found five (as in, the number after four) cases of survey responses from non-citizens who both said they had voted and that Catalyst could verify as having voted.

    Using this data, some modeling, and error analysis, the authors concluded that between 7.9 percent and 14.7 percent of non-citizens voted in the 2008 elections. They then simply applied this to the entire non-citizen population in the United States. The findings are as crude as they are controversial:

      Since the adult noncitizen population of the United States was roughly 19.4 million, the number of non-citizen voters […] could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.

    These numbers rest on the assumption that a subset of 38 (possible) non-citizen votes out of 339 non-citizens can be used to extrapolate countrywide voting behavior.

    The Rebuttal

    If extrapolating to a number based from Internet survey response data from a pool of 339 non-citizens into the millions sounds problematic to you, you are not alone. Brian Schaffner is professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and the co-principal investigator of the Harvard CCES from which Richman got his data. He told us via e-mail:

      I don’t know any serious survey researchers who would have tried to extrapolate 100 or so respondents from a large survey like this to produce a range that large without tracking back to think about the dubiousness of that projection. […]

      It is totally worthless as a range of anything.

    Schaffner was an author on a challenge to the Richman paper (“The Perils of Cherry Picking Low Frequency Events in Large Sample Surveys”), also published in Electoral Studies in 2015. Schaffner’s paper makes the argument that even a nearly non-existent amount of misreporting from the non-citizen group would create deeply flawed results if one tried to use that data to extrapolate. In that paper, they offer the following mental exercise:

      Suppose a survey question is asked of 20,000 respondents, and that, of these persons, 19,500 have a given characteristic (e.g., are citizens) and 500 do not.

      Suppose that 99.9 percent of the time the survey question identifies correctly whether people have a given characteristic, and 0.1 percent of the time respondents who have a given characteristic incorrectly state that they do not have that characteristic. (That is, they check the wrong box by mistake.)

      That means, 99.9 percent of the time the question correctly classifies an individual as having a characteristic — such as being a citizen of the United States — and 0.1 percent of the time it classifies someone as not having a characteristic, when in fact they do. […] It implies, however, that one expects 19 people out of 20,000 to be incorrectly classified as not having a given characteristic, when in fact they do.

      Suppose that 70 percent of those with a given characteristic (e.g., citizens) engage in a behavior (e.g., voting). Suppose, further, that none of the people without the characteristic (e.g., non-citizens) are allowed to engage in the behavior in question (e.g., vote in federal elections). Based on these suppositions, of the 19 misclassified people, we expect 13 (70%) to be incorrectly determined to be non-citizen voters while 0 correctly classified non-citizens would be voters.

      Hence, a 0.1 percent rate of misclassification […] would lead researchers to expect to observe that 13 of 519 (2.8 percent) people classified as non citizens voted in the election, when those results are due entirely to measurement error, and no non-citizens actually voted.

    To further raise the possibility that this kind of error could have happened and could be significant, Schaffner and his colleagues went back and re-interviewed people in the survey using data from 2010, telling us:

      In 2012, we re-interviewed 19,000 people who had been respondents for the 2010 CCES. We asked them the same question about citizenship status as we had asked them in 2010. Of these 19,000, 121 had claimed to be non-citizens in in 2010. In 2012, 36 of the 121 had changed their response and to “citizen.”

      Additionally, 20 people who had clicked on the “citizen” option in 2010 changed to “non-citizen” in 2012. Thus, it is clearly the case that a small share of respondents were mis-clicking on response options to that question in at least one of the two surveys (about .3 %).

    The existence of even the possibility of misreporting, especially when you consider that only five (5) of the non-citizen voters identified in 2008 were actually verified as voting, is problematic, as articulated by University of California, Irvine political scientist Michael Tesler in his Washington Post rebuttal to the Richman study:

      With the authors’ extrapolations of the non-citizen voting population based on a small number of validated votes from self-reported non-citizens (N = 5), this high frequency of response error in non-citizenship status raises important doubts about their conclusions.

So, no.

Illegals do not vote en masse.
#14962172
@Pants-of-dog
Why do you think reposting an article we are already familiar with is relevant?
Did I claim 5.7 million illegals voted? No.
My claim is Democrats have exhibited a pattern of behavior that makes it likely they would be very lax in preventing it and perhaps even abetting it.
Giving people a couple bucks to vote is hardly news in our society. Finding out dead people voted is old news, but illegals voting is impossible? Hardly. It is very likely.
#14962200
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we are clear that you have no evidence, and the evidence we do have contradicts your claim.


You don’t have any evidence. You have some guy manipulating figures and pretending it dictates reality.
#14962207
One Degree wrote:When we see a pattern of a child torturing animals, we should be concerned people will be next. When we see someone repeatedly lighting matches and staring at them, we should be concerned when he becomes a volunteer fireman. When we see Democrats increasing rights for illegals they should not have, we should be concerned they are allowing them to vote. There is nothing reduction ad absurdum in this argument.
We know Democrats in areas of California have the political power to pull this off without detection. For example, we know they have records of who votes. What is stopping them from having illegals vote as these people? I would love to see them publish the names of all voters and see how many people who didn’t vote are surprised to find out they did. I am sure the Democrats who actually run the elections are capable of more sophisticated methods than my simple example.
Patterns of behavior do indicate intentions.

My dearest conspiracy theorist friend,
Even if somehow you were correct that you have "evidence of a pattern", the farthest you could stretch this to a conclusive point is that "you suspect voter fraud could be happening" and the farthest point you could logically hold is "I believe further investigation is warranted prior to making a definitive claim".
Now, that is, if we live in a cordial, logical world.
The reality is that you don't have evidence of anything, just a "feeling", a "fear" that your guy drilled into your skull because that is what he does. That hold extreme views without merit get other more moderate followers to become believers. That's how an fearful population of germans could be convinced that Jews were a problem, how russians could be convinced that capitalism is evil, cubans that the US is a bad guy, Christians that atheist are really Satanists, etc.
When you feed this behavior you become part of the problem. If you have evidence that a large population of illegals are allowed to vote at a local level and you are concerned something similar could be happening for federal elections, you have to first investigate it and gather evidence that this too is happening, then you are justified to make such claim. Until then, assuming you are a logical person, you should not hold any conclusion on the matter.

As a side note... what makes you think that if somehow illegals were actually voting they would be voting democrat? Perhaps illegals are indeed voting and they are voting republican :lol: .
#14962209
XogGyux wrote:My dearest conspiracy theorist friend,
Even if somehow you were correct that you have "evidence of a pattern", the farthest you could stretch this to a conclusive point is that "you suspect voter fraud could be happening" and the farthest point you could logically hold is "I believe further investigation is warranted prior to making a definitive claim".
Now, that is, if we live in a cordial, logical world.
The reality is that you don't have evidence of anything, just a "feeling", a "fear" that your guy drilled into your skull because that is what he does. That hold extreme views without merit get other more moderate followers to become believers. That's how an fearful population of germans could be convinced that Jews were a problem, how russians could be convinced that capitalism is evil, cubans that the US is a bad guy, Christians that atheist are really Satanists, etc.
When you feed this behavior you become part of the problem. If you have evidence that a large population of illegals are allowed to vote at a local level and you are concerned something similar could be happening for federal elections, you have to first investigate it and gather evidence that this too is happening, then you are justified to make such claim. Until then, assuming you are a logical person, you should not hold any conclusion on the matter.

As a side note... what makes you think that if somehow illegals were actually voting they would be voting democrat? Perhaps illegals are indeed voting and they are voting republican :lol: .


Are you afraid of ideas? The evidence does not come before the idea. The idea comes first. I do not have the power to conduct an investigation and gather evidence. All I can do is agree this is a reasonable thing to be concerned about.
You live in a world who’s history is filled with conspiracy and you want to shame and silence conspiracy theories? What a strange thing to want. Well actually it is exactly what people behind conspiracy would encourage you to do. You don’t have to believe them to listen to them. It is information like all information and it is up to each of us to decide how much credence we give to it.
Was there a conspiracy to make risky loans? Isn’t a conspiracy just suspicion of a lot people doing something they shouldn’t?
Does the US have a history of political machines using all kinds of illegal tactics? Do they control their own area so completely it is difficult to find out what they are doing?
My reasoning tells me we should be concerned illegals are voting. It fits our history of political corruption. I have no way of knowing how many. Probably a lot. We should have stricter safety measures as many Republicans have suggested and Democrats fight. I wonder why they would fight it? :)
#14962219
You can have all ideas and conspiracies that you want. It is a free country (for now) and free speech is still allowed.
You will simply get called out when your statements are false, misrepressenting the truth, without evidence or exhagerating a point.
Deal with it. If you don't want to get called out on lies and specualtions, do your homework.
What republicans often suggest is expensive voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minorities and low income people, and it is a TARGETED behavior. That is why it is struck down left and right by the courts. Doesn't it seems odd to you that you that a consealed weapon permit is allowed but that a student ID is not?
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statem ... oncealed-/

This country has a problem, there is no universal ID card:

Call your representative and ask her/him for law for an universal identification ID issued by government to 100% of population without cost to the issuer (other than perhaps replacement cost for printing/mailing if lost?) and you will have my support as well.
#14962225
Social Security cards are universal ID cards. We were just instructed to believe they aren’t. Mine clearly has stamped right on it “not for identification”. Try to get anyone in government to accept who you are without it. :)
Add a photo and that would work fairly well. I am against national programs on general grounds, but we already have this one anyway.
However, you realize non citizens can currently get Social Security numbers? That would have to be changed.
#14962227
One Degree wrote:Social Security cards are universal ID cards. We were just instructed to believe they aren’t. Mine clearly has stamped right on it “not for identification”. Try to get anyone in government to accept who you are without it. :)
Add a photo and that would work fairly well. I am against national programs on general grounds, but we already have this one anyway.
However, you realize non citizens can currently get Social Security numbers? That would have to be changed.

Your reply clearly indicates u didnt even bother to read/watch the info I provided. Go do so, then we can discuss.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Anyway, even if a few illegals are voting, not en[…]

lol what a childish argument It's not a childi[…]

There are great blowers in Switzerland! :D I […]

(2) @Pants-of-dog , I do not think that anyone[…]