Elon Musk turned up the volume on immigration policy Saturday, posting a lengthy screed on X that accuses the "radical left" of using government programs to import voters and destroy democracy as we know it.

The tech billionaire's core argument goes like this: Immigration policies, covering both legal and illegal immigrants, are being deliberately manipulated to shift electoral outcomes and transform the United States into a single-party state. According to Musk, if this pattern isn't reversed, American votes will become essentially worthless.

His primary evidence? Rep. Ilhan Omar's election in Minnesota. Musk pointed to the Somali voting bloc in a state that historically had no Somali population, suggesting this demonstrates how immigration is being weaponized for political purposes. He extended this theory globally, claiming identical scenarios are playing out in Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

"The radical left has been using fraudulent government programs for a long time to import and retain vast numbers of illegal (and legal, in some cases) immigrants to win elections and turn America into a single-party state, destroying any real democracy," Musk wrote. "The more you look at it, the more you will be horrified at what your tax money is doing and the fact that, if this is not reversed, your vote will mean nothing."

The timing matters. Immigration policy sits at the center of heated political debate in the United States and internationally. Musk's allegations about deliberate manipulation for electoral gain will likely pour gasoline on an already burning fire.

With millions of social media followers, Musk wields considerable influence over public discourse. When he speaks, people listen, which gives his statements significant weight regardless of their accuracy.

Here's the catch: These claims represent Musk's personal opinions, unsupported by any evidence provided in his post. The relationship between immigration and electoral outcomes is genuinely complex, with ongoing research and substantial debate among experts about actual impacts and patterns.