Newsweek, ScienceDirect, & The Social Security Administration = "conspiracy sites"
None of which support your conspiracy theory that millions of illegal immigrants vote.
I didn't say "millions of illegal immigrants vote", I said "I linked a study from a well respected peer reviewed journal showing hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of illegal immigrants voted." If you are going to try to debate me, at least debate statements I actually made.
Yep, The Social Security Administration, and well respected peer reviewed journals are conspiracy sites. Still on that weak argument of guilt by association are you?
There is no pivot, you argued illegal immigrants cant easily register to vote and I refuted that argument with documentation that it is often automatic. You not liking the fact your argument was refuted doesn't make it a "pivot".
During registration (depending on state laws and regulations) you either have to prove or declare that you're a citizen under penalty of perjury. So yes, they can commit a crime if they want to. So much risk for very little direct gain. You still don't have proof that "many" do.
Except when it is automatic you don't. Man, lies, those sure are hard. I mean we COULD protect our election integrity, but why should we? Would illegal immigrants lie? NO! NEVER! Even suggesting such is racist and offensive! They certainly also do not directly benefit from free education, free health care, snap benefits, etc, that they would simply have to tell a lie to vote for. They certainly aren't poorly educated impoverished people that will vote for whatever bullshit Democrats feed them as long as the gravy train keeps moving. SI SE PUEDE!
You don't get to pick which evidence you want to ignore and what you want to pretend is real. I linked a study from a well respected peer reviewed journal showing hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of illegal immigrants voted. Try arguing the contents of the sources instead of just defaulting to your lame "oh its all conspiracy theories so I don't even need to address it conveniently for me" stance.
Your "study" has been
thoroughly debunked. Try again, this time with proper fact-checked proof.
I link you a peer reviewed study from a respected peer reviewed journal, and your retort is Snopes? MMMkay. Even most of the left know how full of shit they are by now, but I guess you are behind the curve. Regardless, the statement at Snopes reads:
"Did a Study Show That Hillary Clinton Received More Than 800,000 Votes from Non-Citizens in the 2016 Election?"
No, that was not even the premise of the study. You will notice they focus on Trumps claims and how they do not EXACTLY MATCH the most extremely exclusive interpretation of Trump's word possible.
The study said:
"the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election ranged “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.” Their “best estimate” is that 1.2 million or “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.”"
In short this Snopes hack job is largely focused on Trump's claims, not the veracity of the study itself, so you haven't debunked anything. The only attempt to even argue the veracity of the study itself is based on claims the surveyed parties "made mistakes" answering surveys, and the replies were just mistakes. So they went back and rejiggered the survey, and partially re-conducted it to get the desired result to try to claim the original was invalid.
This is classic massaging of statistics to get numbers you want, but I don't expect you to understand this if you think scientific journals qualify as "conspiracy sites". He simply found a way to widen the margin of error and then disappear real results into that gap, then look, poof, they are "invalid". The author even makes dumb statements like there were ZERO illegal immigrant voters, which tells me a lot about his credibility and bias right there.
