A Lesson From Rome: You Cannot Welcome Armed, Unassimilated Enemies and Expect to Survive

In the Louvre there’s a famous painting by the French Artist Jacques-Louis David depicting the Intervention of the Sabine Women. In it the Sabine men, whose daughters were stolen by and then married to Romans in the mid-8^th century BC, returned to avenge Roman treachery and retrieve their offspring.  The scene depicts a woman standing between the belligerents, imploring them to cease fighting:  "If you are weary of these ties of kindred, these marriage-bonds, then turn your anger upon us; it is we who are the cause of the war, it is we who have wounded and slain our husbands and fathers. Better for us to perish rather than live without one or the other of you, as widows or as orphans."

The men stopped fighting and eventually the Sabines became Roman citizens. This strategy of conquest and integration would characterize Rome for much of the next 1100 years. Other than perhaps Egypt, most conquered lands became essentially Roman. This is demonstrated by the extensive Roman ruins found in places like Britain, Portugal, Algeria, Turkey and more.  Although most would never become Roman citizens, their lives would have had similar characteristics throughout the Empire. What’s more, when armies would attack Rome, when they were defeated, which they almost always were, the Romans would sell the women and children (who sometimes traveled with armies) into slavery and the men, if not sold into slavery, would be conscripted into the Legions, but sent to regions far from their native lands.

The result of this was that for most of its history Rome faced relatively few consequential internal rebellions beyond civil wars between rival generals. With the 4^th century AD however, that would change. As the Huns moved east from the steppes they began attacking various tribes who would then plead with Rome for asylum. Sometimes willingly and sometimes not, the Romans allowed the Goths, Vandals and others to move into the Empire. But what was different now was that rather than breaking up these foreign powers and disbursing their members throughout the Empire, the Romans allowed them to settle intact on Roman lands. Armed groups living in their own communities, separate from the Romans and maintaining their cultures with no assimilation demanded.  This would be a recipe for disaster and Rome, which, having lasted for more than a millennium, was gone within a century. 

The leaders of the United States and the EU should have paid a little closer attention in history class because they’re mimicking the Roman Empire of the mid-4^th century…

In both places politicians have either tolerated or encouraged an open border for much of the last quarter century with the result being that the United States today houses upwards of 30 million illegal aliens while in Europe the number may be half that.

In both cases, most of the immigrants crossing the borders come from countries with far higher crime rates, far lower income levels and much different cultures.  In the United States illegal immigrants largely come from Mexico and Latin America while in Europe they come from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries in Asia and Africa. 

As immigrants have often done throughout history, when they move to a new place they seek out brethren from their home countries or people which whom they share customs or languages.  Indeed, that’s exactly what the Italians in New York did at the turn of the century. 

The difference here however is that when the Italians moved to New York or the Irish moved to Boston, their goal was to integrate and become Americans. Today’s immigrants to the United States don’t seem to have that same desire.  They may want to become citizens so they can stay permanently, but that doesn’t mean they want to be American.  Indeed, half of American Hispanics are from Mexico and a significant portion of them believe that America’s Southwest is stolen land that rightfully should be returned to Mexico.  At the same time, most of Europe’s newly arrived are from Islamic nations and their allegiance is to Islam, not their new homes.

That’s a problem because successful societies are built around core, fundamental values that are shared by the overwhelming majority of the population. Ideas such as free speech and freedom of religion, individual rights and private property – to various degrees, while they were not always core tenants of western civilization, are so today, or at least were until quite recently.  Without those shared fundamental notions it’s difficult for western nations to function properly. 

It's one thing for a nation to have competing powers within the existing framework, think Democrats and Republicans, but it’s another thing all together if the competing power wants to split off a quarter of the nation or wants to impose Sharia law. 

Recent events have demonstrated exactly how deep the problems are. Across Europe over the last two years there have been giant pro Hamas demonstrations, some of which devolved into violence.  Across the United States Donald Trump’s attempt to begin to ramp up deportations has been met with violence against ICE agents and in California, it devolved into riots with law enforcement members being pelted with rocks, bottles and various incendiaries while cars were set afire, stores looted and the LAPD headquarters attacked.

Of course, demonstrations and riots happen in any country, but when they are symbols of a bigger fissure that’s a problem. 

In both cases these illegals and their predecessors, many of whom have been legalized, seek to fundamentally change the nature of the countries they now call home. Of course invaders always want to change the nature of the place they invade, just as the Romans did as they were growing their empire.  The difference is when the Romans invaded a new land the people already there usually fought them to maintain their culture. They usually lost, but at least they had enough pride in their culture to fight for it. What we see across the west today is just the opposite.  From Sweden to the UK to Spain and the US, leaders have for years worshiped at the altar of guilt and sought to repent by welcoming millions from cultures far different than their own.  Most of these leaders have been under the delusion that if they welcome these invaders with open arms, give them shelter, food, phones and more that they’ll somehow respect the culture of their new homes and assimilate accordingly. 

Not only did they not do so, but rather many attacked the very people and culture that welcomed them. From skyrocketing rapes and bombings in Sweden to knife crime and rape rings in the UK to drug dealing and taking over apartment complexes in Denver, these illegals have made it perfectly clear that they see their new homes not as refuges from some dysfunctional dystopia, but rather as fertile ground to be exploited. They have no intention of assimilating, and in reality, who can blame them?  If a nation doesn’t care enough about its citizens and its culture to protect them, why should anyone else? 

Here in America we finally have a leader who understands the danger and is doing something about it.  If the leaders of Europe don’t follow Donald Trump’s lead soon they may find that it’s too late.    

 

Follow me on X at @ImperfectUSA

First published on June 11, 2025

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/06/learn_from_the_romans_you_cannot_welcome_armed_unassimilated_enemies.html

No, the United States did not Steal California from Mexico

We’ve all heard the claims that the United States stole California from Mexico and therefore in reality it belongs to Mexico.

That’s not quite… right.  California, like most of the world, has a history that’s slightly more complex than will fit on your average bumper sticker.

Prior to the Spanish arrival in 1565 there were over 100 different tribes inhabiting what we know as California. Most were small and the total population of the area is estimated to be approximately 300,000. 

Although there were some minor explorations, and small settlements, California remained  largely unexplored and unsettled by Spain for most of the next 200 years. This was due to a combination of factors such as the distance from Spain, the strained Spanish finances but also the fact that there were no pack animals, little agricultural tradition, and a food supply that was less than appealing to Spanish palates. 

By the late 18^th century however the Spanish decided they needed to better organize their North American territories to preempt incursions from other European powers, particularly the French and Russians. As a result Spain began a more robust exploration of the state and would slowly colonize it, setting up missions along the vast coastal areas. 

By the early part of the 19^th century however Spain’s fortunes were changing, the empire was stretched too thin and after a decade of fighting, Mexico gained its independence in 1821. The new nation included what is today Mexico as well as California and much of the American Southwest, stretching east to Texas and north to Colorado.  And here’s where the rub in the argument that the United States stole California begins.

The population of California in 1800 was approximately 300,000 – almost all natives – essentially the same as it had been for centuries. By 1848 however it had dropped to half of that due to disease, which was responsible for 60-80% of the decline and the working to death or killing of the natives by the Spanish.

California at the time of Mexico’s independence was already sparsely populated, with just 200,000 people and that number was rapidly shrinking.  (For perspective, that’s ½ of 1% of today’s 40 million inhabitants.) Add to that the fact that Mexico could barely be called a functioning country as in the 27 years from 1821 to 1848 it had literally 40 different governments. As would seem obvious, the governments were dysfunctional, had an incredibly large land mass to govern, little tax revenue coming in and very limited finances with which to field an army to secure it, nevermind carry out the minimum responsibilities of a government. 

To better understand how dysfunctional and empty Mexico was at the time take a look at Texas.  In 1835 Texas had a population of less than 45,000 people, 30,000 of whom were Anglo settlers who’d been given permission to settle the lands by the Mexican government.  The remainder included approximately 7,000 Mexicans and 5,000 black slaves. Because of conflict with the Mexican government on issues from slavery to religion, in October of that year Texas started a war for independence and by March 1836 it had declared itself the Republic of Texas.  That could never have happened had Mexico been able to populate the area on its own or keep it from breaking away.  But it couldn’t, so Texas was born. 

The American annexation of Texas a decade later in 1845 was the catalyst that brought California to the United States. When the US annexed Texas there was a dispute with Mexico as to exactly where the southern border was. The Americans said it was the Rio Grande while the Mexicans said it was the more northern Nueces River. After negotiations failed to reach an agreement American troops marched to the Rio Grande to bolster the American claim. The Mexicans, seeing this as an encroachment on their land, attacked the American troops and the United States then declared war.

The war, like the Texas war for independence, was short lived, with hostilities ending in September of 1847, and resulted in Mexico ceding California and much of what is today the Southwest of the United States, as well as relinquishing all claims to Texas. At the same time the Americans paid Mexico $15 million and assumed $3.5 million of debt owed to Americans by Mexico.  After negotiations of terms, The Treaty of Hidalgo ending the war was signed in February 1848 and California was admitted to the Union in 1850. 

At that time California had a population of approximately 150,000, the majority of whom were the remnants of the native Indian tribes. Over the next twenty years that native population would decline to approximately 30,000, with diseases being the main cause, but with upwards of 20-25,000 being the result of intentional killings by the new settlers.

The year of 1848 was of course an important year for California for another reason, gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill, and the resulting whirlwind would bring over 300,000 prospectors and would be treasure hunters into the state from across America and elsewhere.  By the 1860 Census the population of the state was recorded as 379,000, 90% of whom were white.

And here we get to the most interesting part of this argument. If it were truly the case that California belonged to the people who lived there previously, it most certainly wouldn’t be Mexicans. When California became a state there were very few Mexicans living there and 50 years later that had not changed. According to the Census of 1900, California had a population of 1,485,000 people, of which only 8,086 were from Mexico. That’s less than 1% and only 2% of the foreign born. Compare that to Brits at 85,000, Germans at 72,000, Chinese at 40,000 and half a dozen other countries who had more than Mexico, including Italy, Ireland, France, Sweden and even Switzerland with 10,000. Certainly some of the 1.1 million native born Californians may have had Mexican heritage, but based on the 1860 Census, not very many did. 

Which brings us to modern day California. Today 40% of the state’s 40 million people are Hispanic, and if we suppose that 65% of those are Mexican or of Mexican heritage, that would mean about 10 million people living in California are of Mexican heritage.

Ten million is a big number, but the reality is, it doesn’t do a single thing to support the notion that California belongs to Mexico or that they are the original natives to California. They are clearly not. Almost all of them, or their parents or grandparents came to the United States within the last century, most likely during the last half century. 

The reality is, Californians of Mexican heritage not only have no more claim on California than anyone else, they actually have much less than white and Asian families that go back to the 19^th century. And Mexico itself has no claims against California because their country was too weak and dysfunctional to even maintain it, nevermind defend it. 

The United States won California as a result of winning a war, the way lands have changed hands for virtually all of human history.  This latest attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the United States in general and its western states in particular is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. But of course leftists never let facts get in the way of a good victimization story…

Follow me on X at @ImperfectUSA

Originally published on June 14, 2025

https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/13/the-claim-that-america-stole-california-from-mexico-is-an-ignorant-lie/

Donald Trump as the Isolationist in Chief... Not a Recipe for Success

As I’ve said before, if Donald Trump is the nominee I will vote for him over anyone the donkey party runs. Why? One reason… the single greatest threat to our nation is open borders and the continued entry of people from failed states with no understanding or appreciation for limited government or individual rights. The Democrat Party, which has a similar disdain for both things, has almost destroyed the country on its own and with open borders it seeks to tip the scales of our Republic towards their tyranny by packing the voting rolls with such invaders…

The candidate who promises to build a wall and curtail illegal immigration gets my vote… and my hope that he will actually do so.

But I have to say, Trump continues to make it much more painful to be willing to support him. From his thin skin and childish Twitter tirades, it makes one wonder how temperamental a President Trump might be. Something more consequential that forces some soul searching when considering voting for him is his unserious perspective on international relations. When he says things about not sending money to countries that hate us, that makes pretty good sense and makes a great place to start with foreign aid. But he doesn’t stop there. There are two things that are particularly troubling about his foreign affairs perspective. His populist tirades against free trade, and his statement of two weeks ago that the United States should pull back from its leadership in NATO.

On the former, Trump cries that the United States is losing out on trade with China and Mexico and other nations around the world and that these countries are taking the jobs of millions of Americans. Both of those suggestions may indeed be accurate, but he is wrong in that they are a symptom, not the illness itself. The primary driver of those issues is not that Mexico or China are cheats. They may be manipulating their currencies or labor markets, but that’s not why American companies choose to build iPhones in China or cars in Mexico. It’s American taxes and regulations… Think about it, China is a Communist country separated from the US by 6,000 miles of water and Mexico is a dysfunctional quasi state where the politicians and population are perpetually intimidated by narco terrorists. And somehow it makes sense that a US company would want to manufacture widgets in those places rather than in Detroit or Pittsburgh? Yes. Sure, labor costs are a problem, but it’s regulations and taxes that are the real drivers of trade deficits. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, federal regulations cost American consumers almost $2 trillion in lost economic productivity and higher costs in 2014. And that’s just the federal government! That $2 Trillion was almost four times the entire US trade deficit with the whole world that year! Add to that the fact that US tax rates are the highest in the developed world and that giant sucking sound of jobs you hear is not because of China or Mexico’s cheating, but rather because the US government is simply making it too difficult to operate profitably in the United States. If Trump wanted to make our trade balance more balanced and bring back jobs he’d focus on eliminating regulations here rather than spending most of his time demagoguing the rest of the world.

The bigger problem with Trump’s world view is his fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the United States in said world. Two weeks ago he suggested that the United States should take a step back in its leadership of NATO. We could do that and it would certainly save us billions of dollars a year. But it not only would it lead to a world war, but it would be the catalyst for a collapse of the world economy and western culture. Why? Because it was American military power, presence and a willingness to use both that has kept the west largely at peace for the last 70 years and driven a greater increase in world prosperity than in any period in all of human history.

To understand the impact of a United States led NATO, one simply has to look at the history of Europe. For two millennium, from the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the rise and collapse of the British Empire, Europe was at an almost constant state of war either within itself or without, and often brought much of the rest of the planet along with it.  That reality culminated in the two world wars of the first half of the 20th century that cost the lives of over 100 million men women and children. Post WWII however, after the United States military brought order to a world in chaos, Europe and much of that world have enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative peace, and as a result saw wealth and prosperity grow and expand at levels unprecedented in human history.

None of that happens without a NATO led by the United States. It was NATO that kept the Russian bear at bay for half a century and American leadership in the Pacific that kept the Red Chinese from swallowing much of Asia. And as a result Europe and Asia have become critical trading partners with the United States and have provided both markets for our goods and sources for things that make our lives better.

And now Donald Trump wants to abandon NATO leadership. In the name of populist rhetoric he wants to turn his back on a successful world that the United States largely designed and benefits from. That would be a mistake. For our partners in NATO, for much of the world that relies on the west for leadership and trade, and, most of all, Americans. The solution to a troubled planet isn’t to pull up the drawbridges and hide behind the moat… But that seems to be the Donald’s plan.

It would be a tragedy if American leadership having already devolved from Ronald Reagan defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War to Barack Obama embracing anti American thugs across the planet and unleashing ISIS on the world is followed up by Donald Trump reviving the isolationist policies of the 1930s that led to WWII… because with bellicose and acquisitive states like Russia and China unrestrained by American strength it would not be long before WWIII was at our shores.

But, such is the nature of populist candidates. Say and do anything that will get cheers from the crowds and ignore the consequences down the road. Let’s hope in November we have a Ted Cruz lever to pull

Why Culture Matters: The Natural State of Man is One of Poverty, Scarcity and Conflict

One of my favorite teachers in high school was Mr. Kelly. Ostensibly he was a reading teacher, but his interests were far more inclined towards history and cultures. We once got into a discussion about the great cultures throughout history. The obvious names came up… the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Romans, Aztecs, ancient China etc. Then he asked the question about what determines a great culture. My answer was something like: “A great culture leaves something tangible behind.” My reasoning was simply that whether the Parthenon, the Coliseum, various pyramids or the Great Wall of China, all of these cultures left tangible representations of their greatness. Mr. Kelly then posited that maybe that was the wrong measure. Maybe instead we should measure a culture’s greatness by the vibrancy of life enjoyed by its people during its heyday. In particular he mentioned two cultures in western Africa who left nary a trace of their existence, but apparently had a vibrant society centuries ago. He suggested that it was possible that they were every bit as great as the cultures as those we usually mention when discussing history. I was skeptical but it was an interesting discussion.

Sadly, after 30 years I don’t remember the cultures he mentioned. But I do remember the question itself of how we go about measuring great cultures. That question is very much relevant today. Since then I can’t remember how many times I’ve heard various professors or pundits or pontificators suggest something like “All cultures are equal and deserve the same level of respect”. I’m as skeptical about that today as when I first heard it. Yesterday’s New York Times provided a perfect example of that exact thing. In it was a story titled: U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies. The various Marines and soldiers who became aware of the abuse were told by higher ups that they could not intervene because it was “their culture”. Indeed, a number of American servicemembers who took steps to stop the rampant pederasty were disciplined and even kicked out of the military.

This story comes on the heels of two other events that bring up the question of cultures. Europe is being invaded by millions of Muslims. The United States is being invaded by millions of Mexicans and others from Latin Americans.

Today we find ourselves in a situation where the West, home to the greatest accomplishments of mankind, are under siege by “migrants” from cultures and nations that are abject failures. The West in general, and the United States in particular, are the home of the greatest advances in human history – or in some cases harnessing innovations from elsewhere: Computers. Man on the moon. Mapping of the Human Genome. Flight. Nuclear power. The Mechanical Reaper. Air conditioning. The automobile. Plastic. Electricity. Add to those things that are essential to Western, or at least American culture: Representative government. Limited government. The outlawing of slavery. Freedom of speech and the press. Freedom of worship. Individual rights. Private property. Together these things have allowed the West to create nations where more people have enjoyed more prosperity, more freedom, and longer lives than any people in history.

Prosperity, freedom and longevity may not be the best measures of a culture’s greatness, but they are probably pretty close. Of course that doesn’t mean that either the United State or the West are perfect. They are not, not by a long shot. But for all of their failures they are by and large exponentially better places to live than the rest of the world.

It’s thus strange then that many of the beneficiaries of these advanced cultures seek to diminish them and draw an equivalency with other cultures, regardless of the reality. In much of the Muslim world women are 2nd class citizens… at best. Homosexuals are murdered. The freedoms of speech or the press or religion are virtually nonexistent. Most of the population lives in poverty, or not far above it. And of course there is the near constant threat of terrorism or war, as more than half of the ongoing conflicts on the planet involve Muslims.

Then there is Mexico and Latin America where the economies are in constant turmoil, where corruption is a way of life, where governments know few if any limits and where drug cartels reign supreme via bribes and brutality.

None of those things create a foundation for prosperity or freedom or longevity. But somehow not only are Americans and Westerners supposed to respect these dystopian cultures as equals, at the same time we are supposed to welcome the masses escaping them into our communities. It would be one thing if the vast majority of these “migrants” were seeking to assimilate into their new locales and contribute to their prosperity. They’re not. In Europe Muslims are seeking to apply “sharia law” in enclaves across the continent - UK - France and trying to bend the locals to their mores... including outlawing Octoberfest in Germany!.  Ninety percent of Middle Eastern “refugees” are on food stamps and “Asian” rape gangs proliferate, seemingly without fear. In the United States illegal immigrants receive government assistance at twice the rate of the native population while in some places they are responsible for over 1/3 of the murders and other violent crimes.

Unfortunately, the subject of culture is no longer simply an academic question to be discussed in Social Studies class. Today the question implies real world consequences such as poverty and death. While Muslim or African or Hispanic cultures may have positive aspects about them, and may have been great at one time long ago in history, today they are largely dysfunctional and often abject failures where the citizenry suffer great calamity both economic and physical.

Liberals in the west would have us eliminate all borders and welcome in anyone who might want to escape their failed states as we are assured that “diversity” is the key to the West thriving. As usual, they are wrong. The Judeo Christian foundations of the West, the march of limited government begun with the Magna Carta, the individual freedoms hammered out in the US Constitution are all elements of a culture that has laid the foundation for the success the West currently enjoys. While adding various elements of far less successful cultures may make liberal elites swoon, it doesn’t do much for the society as a whole, and in terms of jobs, education and quality of life it usually has a decidedly negative impact on those at the bottom of the economic spectrum… but not so much for the elites behind their walled gardens.

As this is America and liberals see racism and hate around every corner, I'll state that this is not some clarion call for a whitebread America or West. On the contrary. It matters not whether someone's hue is that of milk or oil. It’s the culture that matters, not the skin. Charles Napier, the British Army's Commander-in-Chief in India in the 19th century understood this. When confronted by Hindu priests angry at the Brits prohibiting Sati – the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband – he said this:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Can anyone imagine a General in Barack Obama's Army saying something similar and keeping his job?

Customs matter. Culture matters. The natural state of man is one of poverty, scarcity and conflict. The West has greatly succeeded in diminishing all three. Western culture is indeed imperfect and leaves much room for improvement, but there’s a difference between introspection and cultural suicide. Western elites don’t seem to know the difference. Maybe they should be forced to endure life in some of those failed states before they are allowed to diversify our culture out of existence.

The GOP leadership must be using Common Core math to do the calculations on Immigration... and the result is exactly what you'd expect.

Anyone who cares about prosperity has to ask themselves, just how stupid are the people running the Republican Party? One has to wonder, do they even bother to look beyond NBC, the New York Times and TIME magazine for their news and information? Have they ever even bothered to pick up a PEW research paper? You sometimes have to think that if they were around in the 16th century they would have been happy knowing the sun traveled around the earth and ignored the data from Copernicus and Galileo.

In a similar way, today we have GOP leaders have been talking about passing “immigration reform” for years. Just last month House Speaker John Boehner told a group of donors he is “hellbent on getting this (immigration reform) done this year”. Frankly, he might as well put a proverbial gun in the mouth of the Republican Party and pull the trigger – which might not necessarily be a bad thing.

Despite the stories the GOP tells itself while hiding under the covers at night, immigration reform is not the path to success in American politics. And it’s not like there’s not precedent for them to look at. One of Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistakes was when he allowed himself to be hoodwinked by Tip O’Neill into signing Simpson Mazzoli into law. The law allowed 3 million illegal aliens to become citizens and was to be followed by stronger border security. While the citizenship part happened, the border security part never did… and as a result millions more Democrat voters were created. What’s even worse, the amnesty encouraged tens of millions more people from Mexico and Central America to cross the Rio in expectation that they too could be granted amnesty.

The consequence of the failure of creating a strong border has been unambiguously bad for the GOP in general and for the notion of limited government in particular. Coincidentally, as reported by the Center for Immigration Studies, the result of amnesty and our dysfunctional immigration policies has pushed voter support for the GOP down by approximately 6% between 1980 & 2012.

Of course the numbers do tell a story, but the GOP is looking at the wrong numbers. The Republican leadership is concerned that the Hispanic population is the largest minority in the country and they are simultaneously the fastest growing minority. They look at the raw numbers and worry that if they don’t get on the immigration bandwagon that they will get left behind. Their solution is to jump on that wagon despite the fact that it’s heading towards a brick wall.

In this case the brick wall is government control and a lack of economic freedom and prosperity. Some other numbers tell the story. One has only to look at where the immigrants are coming from to understand what numbers really matter.

Over the last 15 years 60% of the legal immigration into the United States has come from six countries: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Costa Rica. Fully 45% came from Mexico alone. At the same time 75% of illegal immigrants are from those same countries. To see what numbers are really important, take a look at where those countries rank on the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index – which includes economic freedom and government regulation and taxation. Whereas the United States is today at a discouragingly low 12 and moving down (1 is the best – Hong Kong & 178 is the worst – North Korea), we are still far above those six countries: Mexico -55, El Salvador -59, Guatemala -83, Honduras -112, Panama -71, and Costa Rica -53. Those immigrants are coming from countries where big government reigns supreme and it shows in their economic standing in the world. Per Capita Income on a purchasing power parity basis – which takes into account the differences in costs in different countries – is perhaps the best way to measure their economic standing. According to the IMF, while Per Capita Income in the US ranks 6th in the world, of these six countries Panama is the highest at 61st and Honduras is the worst at 112th.

Of course none of that would matter if those immigrants were coming to the United States to start anew, embrace freedom, private enterprise and pursue the American dream. Unfortunately that’s not what’s happening. They are seeking to replicate the big government dysfunction and disasters of their home countries here in the United States. According to PEW, among the general population (which includes Hispanics) 48% of Americans want smaller government and 41% want bigger government. Among Hispanics only 19% want smaller government while 75% want bigger government and more spending. And the numbers are even worse among first generation Americans 12% are for smaller government while 81% for bigger government and more spending.

And it’s not just their opinions. They are voting that position as well, voting for Democrats over Republicans 2:1 on average since 1980. Despite what the GOP establishment keeps telling itself, immigration reform means more Democrats in office, more big government, more government control, higher taxes and more government redistribution. That growth in government results in less freedom, fewer choices in the marketplace and above all, less prosperity for all Americans, both new and old.

Big, overreaching, stultifying government the issue of our time.  It's opposite, small, limited government is the key to American success and prosperity.  The GOP establishment need look only at the voting record of blacks in America to understand that big government means big problems for Republican survival. But the reality is, the demographic trends are what they are, and if the GOP has any hope of surviving, it will have to learn to stop pandering by demographics. They will have to learn to articulate how small government and free markets are the key drivers of prosperity, not government control and redistribution. They have to demonstrate that limited government and free markets offer all Americans; blacks, Hispanics, whites and everyone else the greatest opportunity to find success and achieve the American dream, regardless of where they came from. So far they have been utter failures in that messaging, save voices like Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin and a few others. While it may take a while for the party to find the right message, if Boehner and Co. ram through immigration reform before the 2014 elections it may no longer matter. Let’s hope Boehner takes a wrong turn somewhere on the campaign trail and ends up lost in Lake Erie for the next six months…