l. There you go.

Now let's talk about immigration. Rasmussen had a little poll, and 35 percent of people they polled—adult, you know, likely voter types—support the trend of rising illegal immigration. So 35 percent of the people who vote or likely to vote, more than a third, are in favor of increasing illegal activity, specifically immigration. Would you have guessed it was that high?

It's funny that they say illegal immigration. Now if the question had been "Should we increase immigration?" then I could see a third of the people saying yeah, you know, in my opinion we should have more immigration. I could understand somebody having that opinion. I don't really know what the right number of immigrants is. There's some number that's good. There's some number that's too little, too few, because we actually almost certainly need some kind of immigrant flow. But there's some number that's too big. I don't know what that number is anyway.

And so for some reason we all avoid the only thing that matters, which is what would be the right number and right composition, you know, of educated versus laborer types. But anyway, more than a third of the country supports the illegal type of immigration. So I guess they would imagine it should be legal, I suppose would be the interpretation, including 19 percent who strongly support it. They're like really in favor of the illegal kind of immigration. Twelve percent not so sure.

So a majority, 53 percent of Democrats, support the trend of record-setting illegal immigration. But 75 percent of Republicans say no, and 54 percent of voters not affiliated with either party say no, I guess. So I wonder if this is part of the larger trend that conservatives like to be in charge of their family situation and the people that are furthest on the left are more in favor of a "it takes a village, the school can raise your kid" kind of thing. It just seems like more of that. Because if you wanted to protect your family, you could imagine that you might say less immigration because it might have some impact on your family. But if you were like, you know, everybody is a village, then you'd say hey, it doesn't matter who you are, come on in, we'll figure it out collectively. So I guess that makes sense philosophically that they would think that.

But I can't imagine... well, let me give you my overall philosophy of all these things. Whenever there's a question of individual benefit or cost or benefit versus protecting a system, if the system is a really important one, I generally favor the system. Take for example capitalism. I think capitalism works better than the alternatives but has all these problems, pretty bad problems, you know, lots of inequality, blah blah blah. But still, if it came to a choice of making everybody equal or having capitalism with all its flaws, I would support the system because the system is what gets you to the most people getting the most benefit over the longest period of time.

Same with free speech. You come up with lots of examples where you say I don't like that free speech, but still you're better off supporting the system that free speech exists despite all of its horrible flaws according to you. So immigration is the same thing. It feels as if the Democrats are looking at it as sort of a human, individual human suffering kind of situation, which it is. It's 100 percent exactly that. It's about human suffering and human condition.

But if you take the very—and I have respect for the position—if you have the empathy that you can't release yourself from caring about the individuals and saying you know if they can make it to the border, let's just do what we can to help them, that's great empathy. And as a human being I would actually probably quite appreciate you. You're the kind of person I would want as a friend, that you have that much empathy that you really can't see the system beyond the individual suffering. That's a somewhat worthy kind of respectable position. Even if you don't hold it, you'd have to say you can't hate somebody who can't look past individual suffering to see the system.

But I guess I'm a worse person because I can do that. So in my opinion most people would be best off with systems that have integrity. So I'd like to see the immigration system work legally and effectively. And then separately, once you have your immigration completely controlled, then you have a separate conversation about what's the right amount. And you do it logically. You do it in the way that supports the most benefit for the most people, which almost certainly would be America first. In other words, keeping America strong has a ripple effect of protecting the entire continent, right?

Do you think South America is better off because the United States is strong? You don't even need much of a military in South America because who's going to attack South America? Nobody's going to take a run on South America because America is so strong. So it's hard to separate what is good for America and its strength and how that benefits other countries. You know, is Japan better off for having an American defensive umbrella over there? Probably.

All right, breaking news. Maybe it's already happened, but apparently Elon Musk has gotten further than we imagined or some imagined, and