One of the accusations leveled against President Donald Trump by the Democrats, RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) and numerous members of the broadcast and print news media is Trump’s continued emphasis on immigration enforcement and border security. In fact, political candidates running on Democratic Party tickets, such as New Jersey’s Morris County DemocratDr. Rozella Clyde is on record as supporting sanctuary for illegal aliens.
She is in direct opposition to the county’s top law enforcement officer, Sheriff James Gannon, a career cop and Republican conservative.
Clyde chose to replace her “sanctuary county” platform with the euphemistic “Fair and Welcoming” community for immigrants. However, as with the admitted progressive’s colleagues among the nation’s Democrats, many believe the intent of sanctuary policies is to increase the number of illegal alien voters.
Dr. Clyde and her fellow travelers in her political party are, for the most part, opponents of American law enforcement on the issue of illegal immigration. With the lack of Voter ID laws thanks to liberal judges, Democrats including Trump’s predecessor know that there is nothing being done to prevent non-citizens from voting in the U.S.
They’ve also ignored studies and polls that don’t support their quest for uncontrolled immigration.
According to anational survey of police commanding officers (including sheriffs):
Should the Federal Government loan automatic rifles to departments located near US borders? Yes 83.4% No 14% N/A 2.6%
Should an illegal alien who has been convicted of a crime be deported after serving their sentence? Yes 96.1% No 1.9% N/A 2%
Does your department have a written policy against racial profiling? Yes 80.5% No 18.8% N/A .7%
Study Claims Illegal Aliens Vote in Large Numbers
After Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that it wassupporting recountsin several states won by Donald Trump, Trump responded with a series ofTwitter postsaccusing Clinton of hypocrisy for refusing to accept the results of the election aftershe insistedthat he “must.” He thentweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
Several major media outlets pounced on Trump’s comment. TheNew York Times, for example,reportedthat “virtually no evidence of such improprieties has been discovered.” TheTimeseditorial board thencalledTrump’s statement “a lie,” and theWashington Post’s Fact Checkerdeclared“this is a bogus claim with no documented proof.”
These media reports and Trump’s comment are all misleading. There is material evidence of substantial vote fraud, though it does not prove that Trump would have won the popular vote if such fraud were prevented. It only shows that this is a possibility.
This evidence is documented in a2014 paperpublished by the journalElectoral Studies. Based on survey data and election records, the authors of this paper found that 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 2014, the academic journalElectoral Studiespublisheda paperby three scholars who analyzed the results of a large survey conducted by a group atHarvard University. This study also made use of polling data fromYouGovand voter registration and turnout data from Catalist, a firm that equips “progressive organizations” with data to help them “persuade and mobilize” people.
In this 2008 survey of 32,800 respondents, 339 identified themselves as non-citizens, and 38 of these non-citizens checked a box that said “I definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. At face value, this means that 11.2% (38/339) of non-citizens voted in the 2008 election.
Applying this 11.2% figure to the Census Bureau’s estimate of 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the U.S., this amounts to 2.2 million non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a maximum of 2.8 million non-citizens voted in 2008.
On the low side, the authors noted that only five non-citizens who said they voted were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. If these were the only people who voted, it would mean that 1.5% (5/339) of non-citizens voted. Applied to 19.4 million adult non-citizens, this amounts to 290,000 votes. After weighting these results and accounting for margins of error, the authors estimated that a bare minimum of 38,000 non-citizens voted in the 2008 election.
Using other data from the survey, the authors refined their high and low estimates to produce a “best guess” that 6.4% or 1.2 million non-citizens cast votes in 2008. The survey also showed that 81.8% of non-citizen voters reported that they voted for Obama.
As the authors explain, these figures are “quite substantial” and “large enough to change meaningful election outcomes, including Electoral College votes and Congressional elections.” More specifically, they noted that “non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass” Obamacare. This is because Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota captured this 60th seat: with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
In the 2016 election for North Carolina’s governor, the current Republican governor recently conceded defeat based on a shortfall of about10,000 votes. The Census Bureau’sestimatefor the adult non-citizen population of North Carolina is 479,000 people. Hence, if 2.1% of them cast added votes for the Democrat, this supplied the margin of victory.
Trump currently trails in thepopular voteby about 2.6 million. Hence, in order for his statement to be true, 12.6% of the21 millionnon-citizen adults in the U.S. recorded by the Census Bureau would have had to cast added votes for Clinton. This is within the realm of possibility given that the study also found that “roughly one quarter of non-citizens were likely registered to vote” in 2008 and 2010.
Also, according to National Association of Chiefs of Police’s Jim Kouri, during the Bush 43 administration, when immigration advocates and activists led a huge demonstration in New York City, organizations such as the DNC, ACORN, Code Pink and others were observed registering the protesters/demonstrators who were highly suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.
Before the 2014 paper was officially published, two of its authors wrotean overviewof it for theWashington Post. Criticism was swift and intense, and thePostplaced links to four critiques of this article over the top of it, along with the authors’ reply to three of them.
Most of these criticisms were formalized in a paper published byElectoral Studiesin 2015, which accused the authors of the original paper of “cherry-picking.” In the context of public policy,cherry pickingmeans to selectively choose only the data that supports a certain conclusion while ignoring any data that does not. It is the equivalent of lying by omission.
This2015 paperwas written by three scholars, two of whom are managers of the Harvard survey cited in the study, and the third a manager with YouGov.
The central argument of their two-page paper is that all of the people in the survey who identified themselves as non-citizen voters either did not vote or were actually citizens. This argument rests on two flawed assumptions.
First, the critics assume that people who stated “I definitely voted” and specifically identified a choice of candidate did not vote—unless Catalist verified that they voted. This is illogical, because Catalist is unlikely to verify respondents who use fraudulent identities, and millions of non-citizens use them.
This is shown in a2013 investigationby the U.S. Social Security Administration, which found that about 1.8 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 by using a Social Security number “that did not match their name.” Furthermore, the study found that another 0.7 million illegal immigrants worked in 2010 with Social Security numbers that they obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates.” Notably, a Social Security number is acommon requirementfor voter registration.
The Harvard survey and Catalist data evince such identity fraud, because 90% of all survey respondents were matched by Catalist, while most non-citizen respondents were not. In the 2008 and 2012 surveys, only 41% and 43% of non-citizens were matched by Catalist respectively. These low match rates are revealing given that theCatalist databasecontains reams of data on “more than 240 million unique voting-age individuals.” This amounts to 98% of the245 millionadults who live in the U.S.
Hence, to ignore all votes not matched by Catalist will ensure that most non-citizens are excluded. This is especially true of those who fraudulently use a Social Security number, who are the very same people who have an open door to voting.
Their second irrational assumption is that some citizens in the Harvard survey misidentify themselves as non-citizens, but non-citizens never misidentify themselves as citizens. Hence, they dismiss all votes by people who don’t claim to be non-citizens in two separate surveys. This has the effect of narrowing the field of non-citizens to only those who took the survey in both 2008 and 2010. It also excludes anyone who stated on one survey that they are a non-citizen and stated on another that they are a citizen.
The critics make a legitimate point that random errors by survey respondents will overcount non-citizens. This is because far more citizens were sampled in this survey. For instance, if a survey sampled 100,000 citizens and 100 non-citizens, and 1% of them misidentified themselves, this would mean 1,000 citizens called themselves non-citizens, but only one non-citizen said he was a citizen.
Such logic makes sense in a vacuum where all other evidence is ignored, but the reality is that misidentification of citizenship is not just a random phenomenon. This is because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally.
This is proven by a2013 studypublished in the journalDemographic Research, which compared Census Bureau survey data on citizenship to the number of naturalized citizens recorded by the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics. The study found that certain major groups of immigrants—including Mexican men of all ages, Mexican women aged 40 and older, and immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than five years—frequently misrepresent themselves as citizens.
As a worst-case example, the study found that “the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than five years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher” in the Census data than the number recorded by the Office of Immigration Statistics. In other words, only about 4% of Mexican men who claim to be citizens and have been in the United States for less than five years are actually citizens.
Now watch how the critics employ their flawed assumptions to claim that “the rate of non-citizen voting in the United States is likely 0.” Again,38 respondentsin the 2008 Harvard survey said they were non-citizens who “definitely voted” in the 2008 general election or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting in that election. Yet:
instead of examining the 2008 presidential election, the critics focus on the 2010 mid-term election when the presidency was not at stake, and turnout was lower. In 2010, 489 people identified themselves as non-citizens in the survey, and 13 of them said they voted or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. This cuts the number of voters from 38 to 13.
then they dismiss anyone who did not also take part in the 2012 survey, which narrows the pool of non-citizens from 489 to 105, or by 79%.
then they dismiss anyone who did not say they are non-citizens in both 2010 and 2012. This further narrows the pool of non-citizens from 105 to 85, leaving only 6 voters.
then they dismiss anyone who did not appear in the Catalist database as voting, which cuts the number of voters in 2010 from 6 to 0.
The critics do this without spelling out the implications of their assumptions, without providing a comprehensive and transparent accounting of these numbers, and without mentioning that this was a mid-term election.
They also analyze the 2012 presidential election, and their methods are even more problematic. In this case, 695 people identified themselves as non-citizens in the survey, and 61 of them said they voted or were recorded in the Catalist database as voting. Yet:
they dismiss anyone who did not also take part in the 2010 survey, which narrows the field of non-citizens from 695 to 105, or by 85%.
then they dismiss anyone who did not say they are non-citizens in both 2010 and 2012. This reduces the number of non-citizens from 105 to 85. Note that the survey only asked 15 of these non-citizens if they voted in 2012, and 10 of them said they did.
then they dismiss all 10 of these people, because they do not appear in the Catalist database as voting. Moreover, they do this while failing to reveal that all of these people specifically identified their choice for president—nine for Obama and one for Romney.
then, buried in a footnote, they mention that one person who identified herself as a non-citizen in both the 2010 and 2012 surveys was matched by Catalist as voting in 2012. They say that this “appears to be the result of a false positive match with Catalist,” because the person “stated in both the 2010 and 2012 survey that she was not registered to vote.” This argument is based on the unspoken assumption that non-citizens would never lie about voting, even though such an admission could expose them tocriminal penalties.
Throughout the body of their paper, the critics consider Catalist to be the only valid measure of voting, but when this does not serve their purpose, they dismiss Catalist in a footnote. Such duplicity pervades their analysis. They level the charge of cherry picking even as they engage in it.
Beyond all of the evidence above, the authors of the 2014Electoral Studiespaper have written aworking paperthat debunks their critics with many more facts.
Jim Kouri is a member of the Board of Advisors and a former vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. a 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit organization incorporated in Florida in May 1967. The Association was organized for educational and charitable activities for law enforcement officers in command ranks and supervisory agents of state & federal law enforcement agencies as well as leaders in the private security sector. NACOP also provides funding to small departments, officers and the families of those officers paralyzed and disabled in the line of duty.