Oct. 20, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:12
3105 The Truth About Immigration and Welfare
One of the most controversial questions in the discussion of both legal and illegal immigrants has been around their consumption of welfare. A recent independently verified report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has answered that question - and the results are incredibly shocking. The report by Dr. Steven Camarota titled “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households” which analyzed welfare usage using the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data. The major welfare programs covered in this report include Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Women Infants and Children food program (WIC), free or subsidized school lunch, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - more commonly known as food stamps, and public housing or rent subsidies.What is the truth about Immigrants and welfare usage? What does this mean for the future of the United States of America?Sourceshttp://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Householdshttp://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-final.pdfhttps://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2000/Yearbook2000.pdfFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate
And I'm not actually that quick to anger, but I'm really, really angry.
Doesn't it feel like every time you want to have a sensible discussion about facts and reality and trends within society, particularly when it overlaps with any kind of politics, don't you feel like any time you want to have a sensible discussion, all of these hysterical brain parasite jerks come out of the woodwork screaming at the top of their lungs so that nobody can get any facts across at all.
Nobody can get any reality across at all.
Well, we're going to push...
The horde aside, today, you and I, we are going to sit down.
We are going to have a sensible discussion about the facts of immigration.
Because if you want to make good decisions, you need to have good information.
Which is why the powers that be, when they...
I want you to make a bad decision, a decision against your self-interest and against the self-interest of your children.
Bring out the screaming memes so that nobody can get any facts across and everything becomes hysteria.
We're pushing that aside.
Today, tonight, right now, for the next 20 minutes, we're going to talk about the facts so that you can make a good decision about your loyalty and where it lies.
Now, first I would like to thank the Center for Immigration Studies, particularly the Director of Research, Stephen Camarota, for their hard work and dedication in pulling this information together.
They have actually submitted all of their data and methodology to an independent third-party think tank that has nothing to do with immigration to validate what they have done.
I'll put the sources below.
You can check everything out.
Be skeptical, but be open to the truth.
The Center for Immigration Studies recently released a report entitled Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households, which analyzed welfare usage using the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, or SIP, data.
The purpose of the SIP is to, quote, provide accurate and comprehensive information about the income and program participation of individuals and households.
It is the most accurate data when it comes to measuring welfare usage within the United States.
Of course, it does not contain data related to the dollar value of any benefits received.
And this is all based on fiscal year 2012 data, the most recent data available.
But the fact is that we are talking on average of about 10 months worth of welfare state consumption per year.
The major welfare programs covered in this report include Medicaid, which is health care for the poor, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, the Women, Infants and Children food program, free or subsidized school lunches, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, which is also more commonly known as food stamps, and public housing or rent subsidies.
This report looked at welfare usage at the household level as a whole, not the individual level.
Households are in fact the most accurate way to gauge and examine immigrant welfare usage because it correctly attributes benefits given to anchor babies which benefit the entire household.
For those outside the discussion, anchor babies are when an illegal immigrant comes to America, has a baby, that baby is a citizen, and is an anchor way of staying within the country.
And of course, when that baby grows up, it can sponsor relatives into the country.
This report does not differentiate between legal or illegal immigrants.
So let's start.
So you know that feeling you've probably had over the years, that intuition, you could call it, that immigrants use a lot of welfare, that has constantly been screamed down, that you've constantly been called xenophobic, racist, Nazi, whatever.
Well, it turns out that intuition, that instinct that you had, yeah, it's correct.
So this is welfare usage for native households compared to immigrant households.
Natives are the yellow bars on the left to the right of those are the immigrant households.
And again, immigrant households use welfare 10.2 months out of the year, 9.8 for native households.
This is a huge amount of money, by the way, that we're talking about, people.
Total federal expenditures for welfare programs, nearly half a trillion dollars in 2012.
The states spent an additional $180 billion on Medicaid alone.
And of course, those who are getting this welfare, who are getting all of these benefits, they're not paying income tax, little to no income tax, if they even declare the work that they're doing.
So this is your money.
This is your wallet.
This is your children's future.
This is why you can't have nice stuff, because all of these hands are in your wallet.
And I'd love to not care where people live.
I think it would be fantastic to live in a world where I don't care who lives where.
But let me put it to you this way, people.
If you're in my wallet, yeah, you're on my mind.
Because that wallet is how I provide for my family and how I provide for my child and the future of everything that I care about and everyone that I love.
So yeah, if your hands are in my wallet, you have my attention.
So, native households, do you use any welfare in 2012?
30% of natives, yes.
51% of immigrants, yes.
You'll see this pattern repeatedly throughout this presentation, that the immigrant households...
Broken down by ethnicity is different, but the immigrant households as a whole are generally double, close to double the consumption of welfare compared to native households.
Medicaid, 23% natives, 42%.
Immigrant households, right?
Twice 23 is 46, so this is close to double.
Food, 22% of natives use food welfare, 40% of immigrants.
Cash welfare, 10% to 12%.
Housing is about even.
I don't know exactly why.
My guess would be it's because there are long waiting lists for housing.
This is by ethnicity.
We break things down in this presentation by ethnicity because the ethnicities are not acting the same when it comes to welfare consumption.
All again, 30-51% native to immigrants.
Asians, this includes Indians as well as Chinese and so on, 22% of native households are using welfare, far below the average, 33% of immigrant households.
Among whites, 23% below the average are using welfare natively, 35% of immigrant households are using welfare.
Among Hispanics, 54% of native households are using welfare.
70% of immigrant Hispanic households are using welfare.
That is almost, there's more than triple that of whites.
Almost.
55% of native blacks and 53% of immigrant black households are using welfare.
Let's look at Medicaid.
Again, we're breaking this down because different ethnicities use the healthcare system in different ways.
23% of natives, 42% of immigrants are using Medicaid programs.
15% of Asians, natives, 27% immigrant.
Again, almost double.
17% white natives, 27% immigrants among Hispanics.
42% of native households are using Medicaid and 58% Of the immigrant households, Hispanic households, are using Medicaid.
43% domestic, 40% immigrant for blacks.
Well, maybe it's the number of kids.
Maybe, of course, as you probably know, immigrants have higher fertility rates than the native population.
And maybe they just have more kids.
Not the case.
Households without children, no kids involved.
20% of native households without kids use welfare.
30% of immigrant households.
Among food, 14% to 24%.
Medicaid, 12% to 16%.
Cash welfare, 8% to 13%.
Housing, 5% to 7%.
We'll break this more down in a moment.
Among the ethnicities, households without children, all, again, 20-30% native to immigrants.
Asians, 14-26%.
Again, double 14 is 28.
This is almost double.
Among whites, 16% use welfare if there are no kids in the household.
Among immigrant whites, 23%.
Hispanics, 33% of native households, 39% of immigrant households.
Among blacks, 39% of natives and 34% of immigrant households without kids are using welfare.
So, fertility rate is 1.79 for native-born women and 2.22 per immigrant woman.
It's 24% higher, fertility among immigrants, than the domestic population.
Welfare usage for households with one or more children, 52% of native households, 76% of immigrant households.
Among food welfare, 45% of native households, 68% of immigrant households.
Among Medicaid, 42% of native households, 62% of immigrant households.
Cash welfare and housing is a little reverse, 1311 and 8 and 5.
So, well, maybe it's all these kids.
We'll break that down in a second.
Let's look at this by ethnicity.
Households with one or more children, 52% native households welfare use, 76% immigrant.
Among Asians, 36% of natives use welfare, 44% of immigrant families.
Among whites, it's 41% and 60% among Hispanics.
76% of native households with one or more children are using welfare, 91%.
91%.
Of immigrant, Hispanic households are using welfare if they have more than one kid, one more kid in the house.
Among blacks, it's 82 and 80.
Okay, maybe it's the number of kids.
Maybe they just have more kids, and that's the problem.
Well, we have that information too.
It's not the case.
If there is one child...
In the household, natives are 51%, welfare use, immigrants are 71%.
If there are two, natives 48%, immigrants 71%.
Among three, with three kids in the house, 60% versus 88%.
Four or more kids, 69% versus 94%.
I will leave it to you to ponder the general wisdom, social value, economic value, educational level, and intelligence of people who have so many kids they have no choice but to take government handouts.
So it doesn't matter how many kids are there.
Zero or four or more, three, two, one, doesn't matter.
The immigrants are using the welfare state, using your money, taking your future, your children's future, putting you more in debt.
They are taking more welfare, regardless of the number of children within the house.
Welfare usage with households with at least one worker.
Okay, there is a stereotype that the immigrants are lazy.
This does not hold up to the data.
The vast majority, 87% of immigrant households, have at least one worker present.
It's higher than the 76% for native households.
But they can't be making that much money.
This is the old thing about the immigrants doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do.
Of course, these endless waves of low-rent labor prevent agriculture in particular from being automated, which is what should have happened.
There are cotton-picking machines.
There are machines which pick strawberries, that even have little cameras to figure out whether they're ripe or not.
So having all of this labor come in that works very cheap, oh, it's great for big business, great for agribusiness, terrible for everyone else.
Terrible if you happen to pay welfare receipts.
So, if there are households with at least one worker, 28% of natives are using welfare, 51% of immigrants.
Food welfare, 21 to 41%.
Here again, almost double.
Medicaid, 21 to 41%.
Cash welfare, 7 to 9%.
And housing is 4% even.
Broken down by ethnicity, households with at least one worker.
All 28 to 51, as we saw.
Asian, 21.
Domestic, 29.
Immigrant.
Whites, 22 versus 34.
Hispanics, 51 versus 70%.
70% of Hispanic households with at least one worker are using welfare.
Among blacks, it's relatively even at 51 and 51.
Well...
Does it taper off by age?
Is it mostly just the young, new immigrants who are taking the most welfare?
Well, let's find out.
Is welfare the form of priming the pump, getting people up and running, and then they don't need it anymore?
Well, let's look at the numbers.
29 and under.
Age of 29 and under a household head.
40% of natives using welfare.
56% of immigrants.
30 to 39.
40% to 60%.
50% higher.
40 to 49, 34% versus 56% native to immigrant.
50 to 64, 27% versus 43% and 65 and over.
Welfare usage, 21% for natives, 43% for immigrants.
So it does decline a little bit, but it's a higher ratio of immigrant welfare usage as they get older compared to the domestic population.
Older immigrants are using welfare at a significantly higher rate than older natives.
Well, does it taper off as individuals live longer and get more acclimatized and more integrated into their society, into American society?
We have this data, too.
And all that you could imagine as terrifying for the demographic, economic, financial, and political future of the United States is here to see.
This is the closest red to blood we could find.
So if somebody comes into America, this is immigrant households using welfare by the length of time, the duration that the head of the household has lived in the United States.
So an immigrant who's lived in the United States under five years, the household is Under their wing, 50% welfare usage.
Ah, but it's okay.
Once they've been in America for 5 to 10 years, the welfare changes from 50% to 51%.
Wait, wait, wait.
Okay.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Once immigrants have been in America between 11 and 15 years, the number changes again from 51% to 54%.
16 to 21 years!
Did you acclimatize yet?
How are you doing?
Are you off the welfare teat yet?
No!
The number has changed and increased again to 56%.
Over 21 years, yeah, we got a bit of a dip down, probably because the kids have moved out, down to 48%.
To bring somebody in, immigrants as they are currently constituted, and we'll get to the demographics of that in a moment, immigrants as they are currently constituted come in and ossify by the welfare feeding trough, stay there and feed and feed and feed and feed.
And this is what you are setting up for your children to grow up in.
Well, maybe it's just a lack of education, right?
So, if immigrants are well-educated, boy, they'll be great, so economically productive.
Well, no.
We have data for that, too.
High school dropouts, natives, households, 59% welfare consumption, immigrants, 76%.
High school dips down to 39% for natives and 63% for immigrants.
Some college, 31% for natives, 46%.
For immigrants, bachelors and up, oh, you're really well-educated now, yet still immigrants have double the welfare consumption of natives, from 13% to 26%.
Percent.
This is a cultural issue.
Percent of households in poverty...
Well, maybe immigrant households are just super poor, and that's the problem.
Of course, immigrant households, not to anyone's surprise, have a much lower income than natives.
In 2012, the official poverty threshold for a family of three in the continental 48 states was $18,284.
Immigrant households are 50% more likely to be in poverty than native households, 21% versus 14%.
So here, this is the percent of households in poverty, natives 14%, immigrant households 21%.
From 100% to 199% poverty, that's two and a half meals a day, 20% to 26%.
Once you start getting into low income or the lower classes, 200% or more of the poverty level, 67% of native households and 54% of immigrant households.
So these numbers do not explain the disparity.
Because even when we compare apples to apples and we look at native households under the poverty line and immigrant households under the poverty line, immigrants are still using welfare at substantially higher rates.
Any welfare at all?
70% native, 79% immigrant.
Food welfare, 62% to 69%.
Medicaid, 58% versus 71%.
And cash welfare and housing are a little bit declined for reasons outside the scope of this presentation.
So native households living in poverty are still less likely to use welfare than immigrant households in exactly the same situation.
See, welfare is supposed to be Not the starting and staying place of your economic life.
It is supposed to be the last resort.
Not the port of first call where you move in.
The last resort.
You've run out of your savings.
You've run out of people who can help you.
You've couch-served as much as humanly possible.
Oh dear, you have to go on welfare.
Otherwise, you're going to live in the streets.
But that's not how it's working in America with post-1965 immigration, as we'll talk about in a moment.
This is broken down by ethnicity.
Households in poverty.
If it was only poverty that was causing welfare consumption, all these lines would be the same.
All 70 to 79.
Asians, 59% native.
Taking welfare and poverty, 64% immigrants.
Whites, 58% to 66%.
Hispanics, well, looky la.
90% of native households that are Hispanic that live in poverty are taking welfare.
87% of immigrants.
This is what I mean when I'm saying.
They come to the feeding trough and they fossilize.
Blacks, 88%.
Native, 77%.
For immigrants.
Maybe this was just a one-time blip.
Maybe there was a hiccup.
Maybe a hole in the space-time continuum sucked up resources for a particular period of time.
Okay.
Let's look at the four years leading up to this report.
Native households' welfare usage, 29%.
Immigrant households, 49%.
2010, 29% versus 50%.
2011, 30% versus 51%.
2012, 30% versus 51%.
This is not an aberration.
This is not a whoopsie on a banana peel.
This is not a sudden tumble or a sudden escalation.
This is consistent over time and consistent, as we saw earlier, into the deep, dark, and destroyed future.
Hey, how's your region stacking up?
In the Northeast, 31% of native households use welfare, 50% of immigrant households.
In the Midwest, 27% versus 47%.
In the South, 33% native versus 49% immigrants on welfare.
And in the left coast, in California, ding, ding, ding, you have a winner.
29% of native households are on welfare and 55% Of the immigrant households are using welfare.
I don't think that's a lot of Swedes.
Top immigrant receiving states.
See, we should see any break in these patterns.
Any break would be a welcome change, but it doesn't matter how you slice and dice it.
The facts are the facts.
In California, 30% native on welfare, 55% immigrant.
Florida, 28% versus 42%.
New York, 33% versus 59%.
And in Texas, 34% versus 57%.
Everywhere you go, it is the same story.
Gosh, I wonder why real wages aren't budging.
Gosh, I wonder why there's such a huge deficit.
I wonder why the debt is so large.
Got a lot of unfunded liabilities?
Hmm.
We might be on the trail of a cause.
Ooh, I wonder if there's a widening wealth disparity between rich and poor in the United States.
I bet you that's the fault of the free market, because Lord knows immigration isn't run by the government.
Immigration isn't some giant government program like welfare.
And this doesn't even take into account things which are forced income transfers that aren't even counted as welfare, like public schools.
You know, when a third of Mexico lives in America, that might have somewhat of an impact on the quality of your children's education, because you need a lot of translators, and you need a lot of multilingual teachers, a lot of gangs and divisions and split-ups and attacks and conflicts and crime and problems.
All right.
Thank you for your patience.
Now we get to the true meat of the matter.
And we'll talk about why this is so important in the next slide.
But this is all you need to know.
Immigrant welfare usage by origin country.
Yes, yes, not all immigrants are created the same.
People say, ah, yes, you see, but America was a nation of immigrants.
Yes, it was.
Back when there was no welfare state, and the immigrants came almost exclusively from Europe, which is part of the Freedom Club that has developed liberty, separation of church and state, separation of state and economics, free market, rational thinking, scientific method, modern medicine, you know, a couple of the goodies that keep most of the planet alive.
Well, that was the Freedom Club.
Been working on that freedom thing for about 2,500 years, pretty much since Socrates was killed, and everyone went, oh shit, we shouldn't be doing that anymore.
That's pretty bad.
Let's change.
So that's the cultural history that people from Europe bring over.
So, immigrant welfare usage by origin country.
We're going to compare this to natives.
This is artificially high because, of course, there have been 60 million people in America who speak a language other than English at home.
And there are estimates, credible estimates, there are close to 30 million illegal immigrants, mostly from Central America, Mexico.
So, native consumption of welfare at 30%.
If you come from Central America and Mexico, it's 73%.
73%.
More than double.
Double and a half.
If you come from the Caribbean, 51% welfare consumption.
51% of these households are consuming welfare.
How about Africa?
48%.
Wow, that's still higher than 30%, isn't it?
South America.
Okay, I guess we'll call that an improvement.
Down to 41%.
East Asia, 32%.
Europe?
Ah!
I wonder if that's why America used to do that funny little thing we call working.
Europe clocks in at a welfare consumption of 26% Europeans.
South Asia, 17%.
So, quick quiz.
You know, just looking at this graph.
Quick quiz, everyone.
If you wanted to design a country that worked, knowing that you have a coercive redistributionist welfare state, where would you pick your immigrants from?
From the top of this graph, or from the bottom?
I gotta tell you, if that's a tough question, I think I know where you land on the chart.
So, why is this important, where they're coming from?
Because, my friends, Where they're coming from has radically changed over the last 50 years.
1965, the Immigration Act changed the focus from European immigrants to Third World immigrants and also allowed for family sponsors.
And given the large size of Third World families, that's a lot of people coming in who aren't really part of the European tradition.
This has nothing to do with race.
It's everything to do with culture, philosophy, history.
So as you can see back in the day, a lot of orange, a lot of Europe.
And people in Europe tended to integrate over time.
They blend.
1965, and you can see here, 1930s, 1940s, there was a pause in immigration.
Because people sensibly say, well, that's a big meal.
I think I need some time to digest.
And so they put a pause in immigration so that groups could be assimilated.
1965...
Well, the Democrats said we're having trouble winning the war of ideas, especially since Khrushchev said that Stalin was stone evil.
We're kind of having trouble converting people to the left.
So let's stop having a debate and let's just start stacking the deck.
Let's just bring millions and millions of people into America who can be guaranteed to vote left from here to eternity.
Boy, that sure beats having a democracy, doesn't it?
Just stack the deck.
No problem.
What could go wrong?
Well, I guess maybe $180 trillion of unfunded liabilities later, I think a few people are asking, yeah.
Or saying, yeah, I think we know what could go wrong here.
See here, the green, that's Latin America.
And the red, that's Asia.
And that's kind of why the green and the red is why you're in the red.
The green light to non-European immigrants, the red of communism or socialism or leftism, well, then you get a massive deficit.
You get crumbling infrastructure.
This is why you can't get decent money for the schools.
This is why nothing gets repaired in America anymore.
But it's okay.
Because this is enough votes to make sure that Nancy Pelosi doesn't ever run out of Botox.
And here we go.
You got choices, America, about who you let into the country.
Hey, I'd love a world with no borders.
Everyone comes and goes as they please.
Wonderful.
That ain't the world we're living in.
We have to deal with the facts.
This is what I want to get across to you.
Look at this chart.
Welfare usage, Mexican versus European immigrant households.
Hey, did you use any welfare last year?
26% of European immigrants say, yeah.
And 73% of Mexican immigrants say, see, can I have some more?
26%, 73%.
Almost triple.
Almost triple.
Hey, did you take any Medicaid, Europeans?
Well, 20% of them shamefully say yes and apologize.
59% of Mexican immigrants say, yes, we took a lot of Medicaid last year.
Again, that's almost triple.
Did you take any food welfare Europeans?
No.
15% say yes.
They're willing to go hungry.
15% of European immigrants take food welfare.
64% of Mexicans take food welfare.
Well, it's hard to get to be the world's most diabetic nation without some government assistance now, isn't it?
Did you take cash welfare?
9% of Europeans, 14% of Mexicans, 6 and 6 for housing.
And this is how the system is structured to work.
You pull people in, you get them addicted to something, and they will continue to vote for whoever provides them their addictive substance.
In this case, it's income transfer.
Spike people's drinks with heroin.
Next thing you know, they're knocking at your door at 3 o'clock in the morning with skin-crawling bugs and needing to get a fix.
The Department of Homeland Security makes a big deal and a huge point and focuses all the new immigrants on, hey, here's all the government programs that will give you.
Stuff for free that you never paid into because you didn't ever pay taxes before and you ain't about to start now for the most part.
Department of Homeland Security, welcome to the Democrat feeding trough of infinite voting patterns.
Sorry.
Welcome to the USA website.
Department of Homeland Security is devoted to providing information on all the welfare programs That new immigrants can get a hold of.
And a lot of that isn't really in English.
So these are the facts.
Can we have a rational discussion using the facts?
I'd love it if anybody could move anywhere.
But you're not asking people to move in to your street or your town.
They're moving into your house.
They're moving into your wallet.
They're standing between you and your children's future.
Your kids are going to say to you when they grow up, hey, how come I can't go to college?
Sorry, taxes were too high.
Had to pay for a lot of other people's children.
Couldn't do it.
Sorry.
You've got to go work at McDonald's.
Hey, how come my wages aren't very good?
Well, you know, a lot of people came in with low skills and kept driving down the wages.
And black people are saying, how come black unemployment is so high?
Well, sadly, a lot of unskilled people coming in and competing and over-competing.
Hey, why is everything going to crap?
Why are the potholes not getting filled?
Well, because your average school in California needs about 4,000 interpreters just to get through the day.
That's a little pricey.
Hey, I wonder why the costs of health care are going through the roof.
Well, Watch this again, and you'll see it magically unfold before you, like a giant, yawning, sperm whale, mooring to death opening.
This is the reality of what is happening.
This is the demographic suicide of the United States.
You want to know why Donald Trump's doing well?
You want to know why people are quite behind him?
Because nobody ever asked the American population if they wanted to live in a third-world country by degrees.
Nobody.
Before 1970, immigrants are much more likely to have college degrees, much more likely to make more money, less likely to be on welfare, more likely to own their own homes.
After 1970, whoop, all flips around.
Look, we already know what happens.
The West has poured trillions of dollars into third world countries in the form of foreign aid.
Has it helped?
No, there's still unbelievably dysfunctional, warring, corrupt crap holes that everybody's screaming and struggling to get out of like a ferret in an overturned aquarium.
So foreign aid sending the money to third world countries has done worse than nothing.
How is sending money to foreigners really terrible, but having those foreigners move here and sending money to them going to be fantastic?
It makes no sense.
And it comes down to your children or their children.
Call me crazy.
Call me old-fashioned.
Call me tribal.
Hey, call me a cab.
But the reality is, if I have to choose between my daughter's future and some foreigner's kid's future, hey, sorry, it's not even a close call.
Hey, I expect them to do the same.
It's my kid's.
That I want to grow up free, and at least relatively debt-free, and in a culture that is committed to the traditional Western ideals of free trade, of hard work, of education, of separation of church and state, separation of state and economics, small, limited, classical liberal-style government.
Is she going to get that the way things are going?
Are your children going to get that, the way things are going?
And this is why people are talking about immigration.
And doesn't it bother you just a tiny little bit that all of this information has been studiously withheld from you, though being widely available in professional circles?
Ah, because you just get screamed at as a racist if you bring up facts.
Well, don't shoot the messenger, and the numbers ain't racist.
If groups act differently, we can begin to judge them differently.
Once groups act the same, if you judge them differently, then you may be a racist.
But if groups act differently, it's not racist to say that groups act differently.
A third of the Mexican population now lives in the United States, largely taking welfare and voting for Democrats who want a bigger nanny state to take away guns and to have bigger government and more government and more control over the population.
A third of Mexico is trying to bring Mexican-style government to the United States.
