The 6.3 Trillion Dollar Gamble

“You can have open borders or you can have the welfare state, but you cannot have both.” — Milton Friedman

To view the video containing Friedman's remarks on immigration click here.

I am the first generation of immigrants on my father’s side and the second (by one year) on my mother’s. Subsequently I have a warm place in my heart and mind for immigrants — be they LEGAL.

Until 1913 the United States had an open immigration policy. The first waves were the English Puritans arriving in Massachusetts comprised the first of four great migrations to America. After the English Civil War a generation later, Royalist Cavaliers, Anglican Royalists, and sympathizers of the Crown fled Puritan-dominated England and settled in the Virginia area. The third transatlantic migration occurred between 1675 and 1725, when Quakers from the northern midlands of England arrived in the Delaware River Valley. The fourth of the great migrations was comprised of Scots-Irish who settled in the broad expanse of land from western Pennsylvania to the Shenandoah Valley. These are the people who gave us our Republican form of government. They were the stock our Founders came from.

The next large waves were the German and Irish waves of 1848. The German’s came and settled mainly in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. They were the farmers and small businessmen. They were also scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. They invented things, they discovered new pharmaceuticals, they designed and built things like the Brooklyn Bridge, and the started companies that grew in giant corporations like General Electric.

On the other hand the Irish immigrants were poor; many tenant farmers, who were escaping the potato famine that was sweeping Ireland. They settled in the big cities on the East Coast and provided the labor demanded by our growing industrialization. By the time of the Civil War many of these immigrants and their children were fighting for the Union.

After the Civil War it was the Irish immigrants were building the railroads, including the Transcontinental Railroad, our bridges, and roads. By 1880 most of the police forces of eastern cities such as New York, Boston, and Philadelphia were comprised of Irish as were the non-commissioned officers in the Army.

The next big wave of immigrants came from Southern and Eastern Europe with the majority being from Italy. Again these immigrants migrated to our big cities to fill the increasing demand for factory workers.

The one thing all of these immigrants had in common was their allegiance to the United States. They came for freedom and opportunity. Yes they brought their cultures and foods with them. They brought Italian pasta, Irish stew, and German beer and Bratwurst. What would we do today without Italian food?

Yes they settled in ghetto-like areas in the big cities with their clubs, restaurants and churches, but they all learned to speak English so they could learn the laws, gain employment, go to school, and eventually become citizens. There was no affirmative action, Multi-lingual schools, welfare programs, and special programs for immigrants. These immigrants worked hard to build their families, their homes, their churches, and mostly their communities. They were contributors, not takers

I had a close friend who was a second generation Italian. His parents had immigrated in the 1920’s. He told me that while Italian was spoken in the home his parents demanded of him and his siblings that the moment they stepped out of the house they were to only speak English. Mario went on to serve in WWII and was a decorated soldier. While these immigrants, like Mario, had an affection for their mother country’s language, food and, culture their allegiance was to the United States. This is why the United States was called a melting pot. It was like steel — it was comprised of various elements to give it strength and durability. When looking at a piece of good steel you cannot recognize those elements, but you know they are contained within.

Today our immigrants are different. We are becoming a salad bowl. According to a recent study by the Manhattan Institute more than 60% of Mexican immigrants cannot speak or read English. Writers from Aristotle to St. Augustine and Alexis de Tocqueville have stated that a common language is needed for the survival of the sovereignty of a civil society.

Many, if not most, of today’s immigrants (legal or illegal) are not coming to the United States as our previous waves on immigrants did. They are coming for one thing and that thing is money. This is mainly true for those crossing our Southern border. The economies in their home countries are so lousy and the opportunities are so slim they view the United States with its current immigration enforcement policies as place to earn money and send it home to their families. They express on real allegiance to the United States.

Legalizing an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants will cost taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion over the coming decades, according to a study released last Monday by the Heritage Foundation.

The study projects illegal immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and pay only $3.1 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes if they gain lawful status under comprehensive immigration reform pending in the Senate.

Heritage opposes the Senate immigration bill, which the group argues would provide amnesty to those who entered the country illegally. Its findings could make it tougher to move the bill through either chamber by rallying conservatives against it.

“Amnesty is unfair to those who come here lawfully and those who are waiting,” former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Heritage’s president, said during a presentation of the group’s findings. “It will cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars over the next several decades, and it will make our immigration problems worse.”

DeMint said the comprehensive immigration reform bill crafted by the Senate’s Gang of Eight was written in a way to minimize the costs accrued over the next ten years, the window typically used by the Congressional Budget Office to assess the cost of legislation.

He compared the bill to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which CBO estimated would reduce the federal deficit by $132 billion over 10 years.

“It’s clear a number of people in Washington who might benefit from an amnesty as well as a number of people in Congress do not want to consider the cost,” DeMint said. “Clearly, by the way the legislation was written just like with ObamaCare and other legislation, they play their normal tricks of trying to push some of the expenses outside the 10-year window to get Congressional Budget Office to estimate some actual savings.”

“No matter how you slice it, amnesty will add a tremendous amount of pressure on America’s already strained public purse,” said Robert Rector, Heritage’s senior research fellow in domestic policy studies.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to mark up the 844-page immigration reform bill this week.

The potential drain on the federal government was one of the principle arguments critics used against comprehensive immigration reform legislation to derail it in 2007.

The study states the typical illegal immigrant household receives $14,000 more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. Heritage estimates that gap would jump to $29,500 per household after ten years when immigrants would become eligible for welfare and other benefits, if the pending legislation became law.

Under the bill, millions of illegal immigrants would receive provisional legal status almost immediately and permanent legal status after a period of ten years. They would be eligible for citizenship after an estimated wait of 13-1/2 years.

After amnesty, the typical unlawful immigrant will receive government benefits for 50 years, meaning his household would receive $592,000 more in government benefits during his lifetime than he would pay in taxes,” Heritage concludes.

The average illegal immigrant would draw more than $3 in Social Security and Medicare for every dollar paid in Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, the study said.

The Executive Summary of the Heritage Report states:

“Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

Direct benefits: These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

Means-tested welfare benefits: There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Public education: At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.

Population-based services: Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.

The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.

The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.

Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.

The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.

Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.

In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality.

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and ObamaCare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.

After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and ObamaCare. At that point or shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically.

The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed.

• As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
• During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
• At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
• Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.

• Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
• In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
• At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
• In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)

The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.

If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution. The fact that the average household gets $31,600 in government benefits each year is a shock. The fact that a household headed by an individual with less than a high school degree gets $46,600 is a bigger one.

Many conservatives believe that if an individual has a job and works hard, he will inevitably be a net tax contributor (paying more in taxes than he takes in benefits). In our society, this has not been true for a very long time. Similarly, many believe that unlawful immigrants work more than other groups. This is also not true. The employment rate for non-elderly adult unlawful immigrants is about the same as it is for the general population.

Many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they will help relieve the fiscal strains of an aging society. Regrettably, this is not true. At every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants, on average, generate fiscal deficits (benefits exceed taxes). Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a “fiscal surplus” that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. This situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty.

Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has paid.

Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.

Following amnesty, the fiscal costs of former unlawful immigrant households will be roughly the same as those of lawful immigrant and non-immigrant households with the same level of education. Because U.S. government policy is highly redistributive, those costs are very large. Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century.

Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college, they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes.

Of course, not all the children of unlawful immigrants will graduate from college. Data on intergenerational social mobility show that, although the children of unlawful immigrants will have substantially better educational outcomes than their parents, these achievements will have limits. Only 13 percent are likely to graduate from college, for example. Because of this, the children, on average, are not likely to become net tax contributors. The children of unlawful immigrants are likely to remain a net fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, although a far smaller burden than their parents.

A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not those who have broken our laws.”

Free-market economist Milton Friedman once warned that open borders are incompatible with a welfare state. The $6.3 trillion cost of amnesty forecast by the Heritage Foundation illustrates it in spades.

As the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill wends through Congress, it's useful to have a report from Heritage showing just how much legalizing some 11 million unlawful immigrants will cost the taxpayers amid all the champagne-glass clinking from the anything-but-in-the-shadows illegals.

Based on direct benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation; means-tested benefits, which include more than 80 different welfare programs; public education, and city services such as police, fire and highways, the fiscal tab for legalizing illegal immigrants will come to $6.3 trillion over 50 years, the study showed.

That's because illegal immigrants, who on average have lower skills and education than U.S. citizens, already take $14,000 more in benefits than they contribute to the economy and amnesty will make them eligible for far vaster pools of taxpayers' money. These new benefits include Social Security, Medicare and welfare, and will raise the differential per household to $28,000, according to the study.

"Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits," the study reports.

Critics, such as the Cato Institute, point out that the study is flawed because its static accounting fails to account for economic growth and rising wages. That might be a fair criticism.

But there is also the question of how much an economy can grow if the government is saddled with $6.3 trillion in new costs, or in any case, the certainty of higher costs based on greater eligibility for benefits. And why can't this same projected growth from new immigrants be achieved through legal immigration, with the government putting a premium on admitting the world's most productive?

Yet that's not what's happening. The records show that among legal immigrants, U.S. officials have for years systematically ignored the law that prohibits admission of immigrants likely to become public charges. The figure among illegals is almost certainly comparable, and a demonstration of the sad fact that, there are large numbers of immigrants who cross the border to take the welfare benefits superior to those available in their home countries.

In other words, "If someone offers you a gift, you take it," as Friedman has said.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57% of all immigrant households with children use at least one welfare program, compared to 39% for native households with children. Illegal immigrants are high users of food assistance and Medicaid, but legal immigrants are consistently higher in the use of all welfare programs including those that illegals do not qualify for.

What it shows is "you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state," as Friedman said in 1999.

The University of Chicago Nobel Laureate understood precisely why, pointing out that in its own paradoxical way, illegal immigration is actually a good thing but — "only good so long as it's illegal.

"Why? Because so long as it's illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don't qualify for Social Security, they don't qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket," Friedman said.

Amnesty will ensure that illegals get those benefits — without ever being screened as desirable, contributory, productive, or any of the things that should make legal immigrants beneficial to the country and the American people who welcome them.

For those Republicans who believe that a comprehensive immigration bill will bring Hispanic voters to their party I have some news for them. According to a 2012 report published by the Pew Research Center on the voting trends of Hispanics no matter what the Republicans do about immigration they will not influence Hispanics. What the majority of Hispanic voters really want is free stuff. Since 1980 Hispanic voters have never given Republicans more than 40% of their vote even after Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, and considering that it was introduced by Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican.

• 1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21
• 1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24
• 1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39
• 1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36
• 1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51
• 2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27
• 2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18
• 2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36
• 2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44

According to February 2013 by the Gallup Polling Organization  Democrats enjoy 2-1 advantage over the GOP among Hispanics:

“The Democratic Party currently enjoys a significant lead in party identification among U.S. Hispanic adults. This advantage also appears to have intensified over the course of 2012, though this in large part likely reflects the general party identification patterns that affected all Americans during the election year. Factoring in Hispanic adults who lean toward a party but do not initially identify with that party, the Democrats have an especially robust advantage over the GOP among Hispanics -- a factor that may very well have shaped the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

As Republicans consider ways to increase their appeal among Hispanic adults, it is worth noting that Republicans made little progress over 2012 in terms of winning new Hispanic supporters, while the Democratic Party made noticeable gains. Perhaps even more worrisome for the GOP is its poor performance among young Hispanic adults. While the GOP is not particularly popular with any Hispanic age groups, those aged 18 to 34 constitute almost half of the overall Hispanic adult population. Indeed, they are the engine of the Hispanic vote and its future. Gallup's data indicate that this picture is not going to get any brighter for the Republicans on its own, merely by virtue of generational shifts. Despite the higher rate of U.S. nativity among young Hispanics compared with those 35 and older, young Hispanic adults are just as entrenched in the Democratic Party, thus perpetuating the high degree of difficulty Republicans face in trying to make inroads in this important and growing community.”

The Gang of 8 with Marco Rubio acting as the front man for Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin — two very untrustworthy politicians is touting this bill on national TV. The Democrats are pushing for this bill as they want to increase their share of government-dependent voters so they can gain even more power and change Texas from red to blue.. Rubio keeps telling us that this bill will provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals now living in this country. He claims that they will not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, ObamaCare, or any other government welfare or educational program. No matter what Rubio thinks of tells us his will not happen. Even if a bill with these provision prevail in the final bill here is what will happen — mark my words.

Once comprehensive immigration bill goes into effect some illegal immigrant, given amnesty under the bill, will walk into a government office accompanied by an attorney for LULAC or MALDEF, probably in California. When the immigrant is denied the benefit the attorney will immediately file a suit in the Federal District Court. They will claim that under the 14^th Amendment they have been denied equal protection. No matter how the judge rules the case will advance to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals where once again no matter the decision the case will go up to the Supreme Court. There the decision will be left in the hands of 9 justices and if history tells us anything those portions of the bill denying the illegal immigrant his or her free stuff will be struck down and we will be in debt for 6.3 trillion dollars (money we will have to borrow from the Chinese) and the flood on immigrants from south of the border will continue.

Numerically, the left understands that this is the death-blow to the right they have long sought. Assuming 11 million such new voters (the number could be significantly higher), one need only apply the distribution of Hispanic votes in the last presidential election to grasp the endgame. Approximately 71% of Hispanic votes went to Obama, while only 28% went to Romney. While it is unlikely that every new quasi-citizen would get to the polls with his fresh license and ID, those who do will provide a 7-to-3 advantage for the left. There is no similar new bloc of voters to which the right can turn to rebalance that scale. A significant numerical advantage to the left lies in granting amnesty — enough so that they will dominate for the foreseeable future. And they know it.

Meanwhile, the Republicans fail to understand simple math. They have deluded themselves into thinking that if they are just nicer to illegals, and empower them to crush Republicans at the polls to ensure endless favors and political power, all will be unicorns and leprechauns. This is foolishness writ large, making it all the more disappointing that Senator Rubio appears to be guzzling the Kool-Aid. He appeared to be sharper than that, and hopefully he can still extract himself before the damage to his reputation is irreparable. No good can come to a Republican who consorts with Senator Schumer, or any Democrat senator. To be played by them so completely demonstrates gullibility rather than pragmatism.

The left has been at this successfully for decades. They are the Harlem Globetrotters, and the Republicans are the team they travel with — the one that always loses these games. The Democrats even tricked Reagan into believing they would fulfill their part of the bargain on amnesty, and scornfully reneged. Indeed, every single interaction between the political parties involving the left living up to its end of a deal for the last 30 years or more has been a farce. The preceding four years alone have been full of slaps in the face to Republicans, who seem destined to repeat their impressive pattern of cluelessness when it comes to sizing up their suitors.

As the Republicans are waltzed closer to the Democrats' bed, surrendering their conservative principles along the way, we stand on the edge of something very bad, indeed. We are about to say "Adiós" to any shot at political parity for a very long time. Once they have given it up, they won't get it back.

The Democrats will have gotten what they have wanted all along. They will have their class of dependent voters that will keep them in permanent power. The only problem is that they will have to hoist the Mexican flag above the capital building. It’s about free stuff — not immigration.