Sunday, June 25, 2017

General Social Survey shows 5% of non-citizens residing in the US illegally vote in presidential elections

Commenter Random Dude on the Internet turns a light bulb on in my head:
Looks like millions of illegal immigrants likely voted in the 2008 and 2012 elections. While the numbers for 2016 still aren't out yet, you have to imagine that for 2016, when amnesty is on the line, let alone the wall, there would be a surge of non-citizen voting for that election as well.

If up to 5.7 million non-citizens voted in 2016 like they did in 2008, Trump wins the popular vote and likely could flip a couple of states like Virginia, Nevada, and Minnesota. Maybe more states but definitely those could have flipped if it was only citizens who voted.

Here's hoping that Kobach is aggressive in his investigations and that his inevitable suggestions get implemented. 2020 could be horrendous for Democrats if voting was limited to US citizens only.
While I spend an inordinate amount of time mining the GSS, I still miss things. Big things, sometimes, and this is one of them.

In three iterations the survey has asked respondents if they are citizens or not. Across these three years, the survey has interviewed 188 non-citizen respondents. Nine of those 188 report having voted in a presidential election. That suggests that 5% of non-citizens residing in the US illegally vote in presidential elections.

Yes, the usual disclaimers about self-reported data and modest sample sizes apply, but presumably there are other non-citizens who have surreptitiously voted without being so upfront about it.

With non-citizen residents in the US comprising around 8% of the population, a 5% turnout rate up against a total turnout rate of 57% for the 2016 election gets us under 1% of all votes cast and so not enough to give the popular vote to Trump, but plausibly enough to flip New Hampshire and possibly even Somali-saturated Minnesota.

GSS variables used: PRES92, PRES00, PRES08, PRES12, CITIZEN

15 comments:

Black Death said...

The usual cautions about small sample size apply, but the underlying point is still valid - only US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections. The Democrats always oppose proposals to verify identity and citizenship because racism or something. Of course, the real reason is that they want as many non-citizens as possible to vote because, well, it's obvious how they'll be voting. The Democrats, in places such as Chicago, Boston and California, have been notorious for using floaters, repeaters and graveyards to stack the vote in their favor. You have to prove citizenship to get a passport, and you have to prove identity to board an airplane, cash a check or stay in a hotel - isn't the integrity of the election process important too?

With all the blather about "Russian interference" in the last election, Congress should spend some time investigating how many non-citizens voted. Ah, but that would be "racist."

Dan said...

AE, don't you just love Mondays?

(1) Trump's travel ban upheld...

UNAMIMOUSLY!

I think there is a decent chance that some of the Jewish-liberal members of the Supreme Court (maybe Elena Kagan?) have been red-pilled. It can't hurt for the red-pilling of our Hebrew compatriots that the left now openly wants Palestine to conquer Israel.

When the travel ban was instituted, there were SJW near-riots in the arrival terminal at Dulles International Airport. I brought my giant Trump flag and endured the screaming hatred of hundreds as the lone counter-counter protester.

(2) Gorsuch is proving to be a win

I was nervous because I saw that he went a church with possible SJW tendencies. But he is looking solid.

(3) I just realized that Kobach is investigating the illegals-voting thing. Yeah, baby!

(4) Melania looked awesome at that wedding she went to this weekend. I count that as a win too.

Dear Donald Trump, you lied to me: I am not tired yet.

Being a bleak pessimist, I get the occasional upside surprise.


Sid said...

The Democrats' grand strategy is to get more non-whites (and preferably non-Christian ones too) so they can have an insuperable electoral advantage, turning America into a one party state and handing out "gibmedats" for votes until the whole racket comes crashing down with the rest of the country.

With that in mind, why would Democrats worry about non-citizens voting? Why accept illegals just so their children will vote for you? Why let a technicality get in the way of their right to vote?

If you think illegals are Americans (http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2012/1101120625_600.jpg), why shouldn't you skirt around the rules and let their voice be heard? If you really cared about rule of law, you wouldn't want to grant them amnesty, or even tolerate illegal immigrants in the first place.

As Black Death notes, Democrats call mechanisms to prevent voter fraud "racist." When Trump alleged that millions of illegals voted, the Dems just played the outrage game. They didn't try to "fact check" him by demonstrating it's impossible for illegals to vote - they were just angry he'd bring it up.

The question in my mind is how many illegals voted. One million? Five? I don't know. Let's get Kobach on it.

TWS said...

My state requires you ask every client for social services be asked at every interview if they want to register to vote, including illegals. And if they say yes you smile and fill out the form. Anything else you get fired or worse.

Jim Bowery said...

The word "illegally" seems rather quaint given what has happened with immigration policy since 1965. But I know what you meant...

Audacious Epigone said...

Black Death,

Right. "So you care about possible Russian interference but not non-citizens voting and other forms of domestic electoral fraud?" is an easy polemical shiv.

Dan,

Symbolically it's a big win and it bodes well for the ultimate decision down the road, though it's not going to do much now since the invaders just need to have someone already inside the gates claim kinship with them to get them over the walls.

Red-pilled might be too strong, but perhaps no longer fully converged. It's easy enough to see why a Jewish dyke would be sympathetic to stopping a saracen invasion.

Yes he is, he's the real deal. Are you DanfromDC on twitter, incidentally?

I'm being a knit picky contrarian, though--you're right, it's a solid Monday.

Sid,

Kobach is on it, and if anyone wants to sniff it out, it's him.

TWS,

Ha, fail proof!

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

Heh, in the sense that federal law has explicitly forbidden voting by non-citizens for a couple of decades now. But I, too, now what you meant.

Dan said...

Not DanFromDC on twitter.

You are right, maybe it is just a symbolic win. But it is encouraging I think. Maybe I am reading too much into it.

Now about that wall...

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> You are right, maybe it is just a symbolic win. But it is encouraging I think. Maybe I am reading too much into it.

It's a visceral feeling to the immigrants who feel that the country is their's: it isn't. If the Trump Administration keeps cutting back on all of the Bush and Obama era immigration measures, then they no longer feel that the country is their's for the taking. If Trump's proposal to block welfare for immigrants for the first five years goes through, then we will see the immivasion drop off to nothing and not only that but we will see a number of people go back because if they can't suck up gibs, then they want no part of living in the west. They will try their luck in Canada.

It's a visceral feeling to the conservatives who were getting displaced. It's a visceral feeling to liberals who are angry that their goal of one party rule via demographics will be postponed yet another 4-8 years. So much hay has been made of the "New Americans" that if you listened to the media (which fewer people do by the day), it feels like the war is already lost and that it's best to just submit to the cathedral, shoot up some heroin, and ride it out.

I think it's a pretty big win, symbolic or otherwise.

Feryl said...

"In the timeslot, “Sunday Night” lost out to CBS’ “60 Minutes,” which was down from its last new episode on June 11 with a 0.7 and 7.2 million viewers. ABC led the night with a rerun of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” (0.7, 3.9 million)."

Nobody cares about the MSM anymore. It's pathetic. AFHM? Really?

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly-ratings/late-night-ratings-june-12-16-2017-the-tonight-show-lands-back-on-top/

Colbert gets about 2 3/4 million viewers. I know people will point to DVRing, or those who turn to YouTube/Social media to get exposed to media, rather than watching it live.

But if these shows were really that powerful, than more people ought to be tuning in live. Even accounting for behavior/tech changes, I'm sure Jay Leno were he still around would be doing much better.

It's plain as day that actual ratings are irrelevant when you've opted to become Pravda for swpl douches. And BTW, for John Oliver in particular, I'd assume that a lot of his YouTube hits aren't even from America and of course we've got good reason to be skeptical of official hit tallies.

When they hype a ratings "war" or a "boost" in numbers, don't be fooled. 24 hr cable news has become the domain of those over 50, while the "comedy" late night shows are for a quite small audience of X-ers and Millennials on suicide watch because the Obama age was rudely interrupted.

Black Death said...

Bring out your dead! Democrat caught trying to register dead voters in Virginia:

A man paid to register Virginia voters prior to the 2016 Presidential Election will spend at least 100 days in prison for submitting the names of deceased individuals to the Registrar’s Office.

James Madison University student Andrew J. Spieles, 21, of Harrisonburg, pled guilty Monday in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. As part of the plea agreement, Spieles agreed to a prison sentence of 100 to 120 days.

Spieles worked for Harrisonburg Votes when he committed the crime, according to acting United States Attorney Rick A. Mountcastle.

Harrisonburg Votes is a political organization affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Trump is still tweeting about building the wall. I'm not sure what the benefit in that would be if it wasn't his intention to get it done.

Random Dude,

Symbolism is important. And, curiously, symbolism is more than merely symbolic if reports about a reduction in the number of illegals coming across the southern border in the last several months.

Feryl,

TV viewership numbers really do get dwarfed by social media followings. And that trend continues unabated. Every day the former becomes less relevant while the latter becomes more so.

Black Death,

Tip of the iceberg.

Feryl said...

"TV viewership numbers really do get dwarfed by social media followings."

TV promoters (most of whom are liberal) try to enhance the relevance of MSM shows/personalities by pointing to social media activity pertaining to your John Olivers. But the MSM and it's primary emissaries , relative to their widespread promotion and easy accessibility, really have become niche in their engagement with the public. Fox News is followed mainly by middle-aged/elderly TrueConservatives who want to relive the 80's, while the majority of other news outlets with a long reach (e.g., other TV channels, the WaPo, the NY Times, etc.) breastfeed liberal babies. Non-late night broadcast TV, 24 hr cable news, and print all primarily have a viewer/readership that's closer in average age to 50 or even 60 than it is to 40, let alone 30. Late night talking heads skew much younger, but the offensively conceited and partisan hosts alienate all but the most die-hard youngish swpl types who presumably are demonstrating solidarity with the great resistance.

CNN is trying to spin their ratings as historic; but the numbers I listed speak for themselves. Funniest home videos was apparently of greater interest to viewers than current events shows in that time slot. A tiny minority of ultra partisan Democrats and Trump haters, who would eat yellow snow if John Podesta told them to, is busy lapping up the Russia Russia Russia memes and glibly dismissing Clinton corruption (sometimes by saying, in effect, well we know she's bad but Trump's worse!). Lukewarm Hillary voters/Sanders supporters to a large degree have probably become disillusioned with the general state of things on either side, Trump's sizable die hard base isn't watching or reading liberal garbage, and non-voters/lukewarm Trump voters have probably gotten bored with the constant hysteria about Literal Hitler.

Lastly, young people contrary to popular belief are often mostly apolitical and at times even conservative! It's just that periodically, egged on by middle aged elites and malcontents, a decent number of liberal kids starts bitching and older people often mistakenly think that the troublemakers speak for everybody. Like a Boomer kid in 60's Paducah, Kentucky was with Bill Ayers in spirit if not in body. We saw this once again with disappointing (to liberals) young turnout in '16, not unlike how McGovern was shocked that the substantial number of eligible to vote young Boomers didn't show in '72. In the Sixties, as in the present, psycho troublemakers, misfits, blacks, and Jews stir the pot while unpretentious kids get pushed out of the way.

Feryl said...

http://www.electproject.org/_/rsrc/1494447247346/home/voter-turnout/demographics/Turnout_by_age.png

Going back to the 80's, each age groups tends to have a distinct turn out level in most elections, with the biggest exception being 1996 and 2000 when youth and even those in early middle age had unusually low turnout. (as a late 90's teenager, I can vouch for how passe politics were among kids back then). The late 90's lasting politically from the re-election of Clinton in '96-the initial invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 (the first of many idiotic post 9/11 foreign policy blunders). These were perhaps the biggest opportunities for early canonical X-ers to exert influence on an election, before the huge Boomer cohort aged and began voting in higher numbers, and before borderline Millennials/real echo Boomers (those born after 1987) were old enough to vote. Even then, early X-ers and many late Boomers blew voting off.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

I became politically cognizant in middle school--just found a junior high newspaper editorial I wrote defending Bill Clinton!--but not really aware in any meaningful sense until 9/11, my senior year of high school.