A federal judge has blocked the Biden administration from deporting noncitizens to countries not listed in their removal orders without first giving them a chance to raise safety concerns. The ruling requires the government to notify affected individuals and provide at least 15 days for them to contest their deportation if they fear danger. The judge said deporting people without this process could lead to serious harm, such as torture or death, and violates basic legal protections. The order applies to all noncitizens with final removal orders.
"ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude all recommend the same 'nonsense' tariff calculation." read more
Bradley Bartell, a Wisconsin resident and Trump voter, is considering leaving the United States after his wife, Camila Muoz, was detained by federal immigration officials[1]. Muoz, a Peruvian citizen, overstayed her visa while in the process of obtaining permanent residency[1]. Bartell expressed to Newsweek that he is "seriously thinking about moving to Peru" if his wife is deported, though he acknowledges the difficulty this would pose for their 12-year-old son[1]. This situation highlights the broader impact of the Trump administration's extensive deportation initiatives, which have expanded to include nonviolent offenders and those without gang affiliations[1]. read more
His administration is suddenly changing tactics after a federal judge ruled that its mass firings of probationary workers were probably illegal. read more
On February 3, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) for the United States, aiming to create one of the world's largest such funds. Given the nation's $36 trillion debt, the administration is exploring funding options, including the potential sale of federal public lands. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated plans to "monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet," referring to national parks, public lands, and natural resources as potential assets. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum estimated these federal lands could be worth up to $200 trillion. This approach has raised concerns about the preservation of public lands and their traditional uses, such as recreation and conservation. read more
FISHPAW:
The claim that "Trump was deprived of his due process rights under the constitution in his NY trial" is not fully accurate based on available information.
Due Process and Jury Instructions:
- In the New York trial, Judge Juan M. Merchan instructed the jury that they must reach a unanimous verdict on Trump's guilt regarding the key elements of falsifying business records and intent to conceal a crime. The jury was allowed some flexibility only in deciding which specific unlawful means Trump used, but unanimity was required on the core charges. This means the jury had to agree unanimously that Trump committed the crime, preserving his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process[3].
- Some claims circulating on social media suggested the jury did not need to be unanimous, but these have been debunked as misrepresentations of the judge's instructions[3].
- A legal analysis noted that there were concerns about the jury instructions potentially being legally defective, which could implicate Sixth Amendment rights, but the official court documents do not conclude that Trump was deprived of due process outright; rather, motions and appeals are part of the ongoing legal process[2][4].
While there are legal arguments and motions challenging aspects of the trial procedure, the official judge's instructions required a unanimous verdict on the essential elements of the charges, meaning Trump's constitutional right to due process was upheld in that regard. Assertions that he was deprived of due process rights in the New York trial are therefore inaccurate or at least not supported by the court's instructions and rulings as of now[3][4].
Citations:
[1] www.nbcnews.com
[2] media.aflegal.org
[3] apnews.com
[4] www.nycourts.gov
[5] www.nytimes.com
[6] www.supremecourt.gov
[7] www.aclu.org
[8] thehill.com
[9] www.rollingstone.com
[10] www.npr.org
[26] www.thelancet.com
[27] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[28] www.healthsystemtracker.org
[29] academic.oup.com
[30] www.nature.com
[31] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[32] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[33] iea.org.uk
[34] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[35] www.cdc.gov
[36] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[37] jamanetwork.com
[38] www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com
[39] gh.bmj.com
[40] business.ku.edu
[41] wonder.cdc.gov
[42] apnews.com
[43] jamanetwork.com
[44] www.contagionlive.com
[45] www.thecardiologyadvisor.com
[46] www.bmj.com
[47] www.ajmc.com
[48] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[49] factcheck.afp.com
[50] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[51] www.thelancet.com(21)00312-6/fulltext
[52] www.nature.com
[53] www.thelancet.com(23)00248-1/fulltext
[54] www.factcheck.org
[55] www.medrxiv.org
[56] pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[57] www.sciencemediacentre.org
[11] www.nature.com
[12] https://vaers.hhs.gov
[13] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[14] www.phc.ox.ac.uk
[15] www.cdc.gov
[16] www.medrxiv.org
[17] www.pnas.org
[18] vaers.hhs.gov
[19] www.scielo.br
[20] www.nebraskamed.com
[21] www.ronjohnson.senate.gov
[22] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[23] jornaldepneumologia.com.br
[24] research.umd.edu
[25] www.nature.com
(con't)
Based on scientific evidence from multiple studies, most claims presented in the query are not accurate. While no pandemic mitigation measure was perfect, research shows that social distancing, lockdowns, and vaccines demonstrated measurable effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 transmission and severe outcomes. Claims attributing mass casualties to vaccines or suggesting worse outcomes among vaccinated individuals contradict the empirical evidence.
When evaluating statements about public health measures, it's critical to rely on peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, and data from established health institutions rather than unsubstantiated claims that circulate without scientific verification.
Citations:
[1] www.sciencedirect.com
[2] www.pnas.org
[3] business.ucr.edu
[4] assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
[5] www.cdc.gov
[6] www.usatoday.com
[7] pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[8] assure-test.com
[9] sites.krieger.jhu.edu
[10] academic.oup.com
[12] www.cnbc.com
[13] www.reddit.com
[14] www.cbsnews.com
[15] www.gelliottmorris.com
[16] www.usatoday.com
[17] www.bea.gov
[18] bankingjournal.aba.com
[19] https://www.bea.gov
[20] www.forbes.com
[21] www.reddit.com
[22] www.bea.gov
[23] www.bea.gov
[24] www.reuters.com
[25] www.businessinsider.com
[26] www.asm.com
[27] assets.realclear.com
[28] www.washingtonpost.com
[29] www.mayberryinv.com
[30] www.washingtonpost.com
[31] investor.honeywell.com
[32] cressetcapital.com
[33] investor.distributionsolutionsgroup.com
[34] www.atlantafed.org
[35] fred.stlouisfed.org
[36] fred.stlouisfed.org
[37] www.bea.gov
[38] www.atlantafed.org
[39] apps.bea.gov
[40] static.poder360.com.br
[41] www.bea.gov
In other words, the statement in question contains some elements supported by economic data but also includes exaggerations and value judgments that cannot be verified through economic statistics alone. While certain components of the economy showed positive growth in Q1 2025, the overall GDP figure was negative, contradicting the claim that "every measure" is positive.
The impact of imports on GDP calculation is significant as claimed, though the specific dynamics are more complex than suggested. The prediction about future reversals lacks supporting evidence in the current data. Finally, while government spending did decline and contributed negatively to GDP as stated, the normative assessment of this as positive represents a value judgment rather than an economic fact.
The Q1 2025 GDP report presents a mixed economic picture with areas of strength in private domestic demand alongside challenges from trade and government sectors, all against a backdrop of rising inflation indicators.
Citations:
[1] www.bea.gov
[2] www.bea.gov
[3] www.advisorperspectives.com
[4] www.advisorperspectives.com
[5] www.insee.fr
[6] fred.stlouisfed.org
[7] www.bea.gov
[8] www.reuters.com
[9] www.bea.gov
[10] www.bea.gov
[11] www.foxbusiness.com
I'll take it even a step further.
There is no direct equivalent "civil crime rate" for U.S. citizens that matches the act of unauthorized entry into the country, because most civil violations by citizens (like parking tickets or tax penalties) are not tracked in the same way as immigration violations. Entering the U.S. without authorization is a civil offense under immigration law, not a criminal one, and is unique to non-citizens.
When comparing actual criminal offenses, multiple studies and arrest data show that undocumented immigrants have significantly lower rates of criminal activity than native-born citizens across a wide range of crimes, including violent and property offenses[5][1][6]. In Texas, native-born citizens are over twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes and over four times as likely for property crimes compared to undocumented immigrants[5].
Again, there is no meaningful "civil crime rate" for U.S. citizens equivalent to unauthorized entry, and on standard criminal metrics, undocumented immigrants offend at lower rates than native-born Americans[1][5][6].
Citations:
[1] nij.ojp.gov
[2] www.migrationpolicy.org
[3] www.pewresearch.org
[4] counciloncj.org
[5] www.pnas.org
[6] www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
[7] www.fbi.gov
[8] www.npr.org
[9] ucr.fbi.gov
This is context you need to swallow.
The statement that undocumented immigrants "suppress wages, drain social programs meant for citizens, increase crime, and destroy the public schools" is not supported by the available evidence. Here is a breakdown of each claim based on current research:
Wages
- Undocumented immigrants tend to earn lower wages than legal immigrants and native-born workers with similar skills, largely due to weaker bargaining power and limited job opportunities, not because they drive down wages for everyone else[6][9].
- There is little evidence that undocumented immigrants broadly suppress wages for native-born workers. In fact, mass deportation would shrink the U.S. economy and reduce jobs, as immigrants and natives often have different skills and are not direct substitutes in the labor market[1][2].
Social Programs
- Undocumented immigrants pay billions in federal, state, and local taxes, including contributions to Social Security and Medicare, programs from which they are generally ineligible to benefit[1][3][4].
- Multiple studies show that undocumented immigrants are net contributors to these programs and, in many states, pay more in taxes than they receive in public services[2][4].
Crime
- Research consistently finds that undocumented immigrants have lower crime rates than native-born Americans. For example, their homicide conviction rate is 14% below that of native-born Americans, and their total criminal conviction rate is 41% lower[7].
- The claim that undocumented immigrants increase crime is not supported by data from states with large undocumented populations[7].
Public Schools
- There is no evidence in the provided research that undocumented immigrants "destroy" public schools. While children of undocumented immigrants do attend public schools, the broader economic contributions of their families (including tax payments) help support public services, including education[1][4].
Economic Impact
- Undocumented immigrants are vital to several key sectors, such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Removing them would cause significant labor shortages and economic disruption[1][4].
- Their consumer spending and entrepreneurship also sustain local economies and support jobs for U.S. citizens[1][4].
SCOTTS's statement is inaccurate and not supported by current economic or criminological research. Undocumented immigrants are, on balance, contributors to the U.S. economy and social programs, do not increase crime, and are essential to several industries. The suggestion to "import all of Africa" is a rhetorical exaggeration and does not reflect the actual, evidence-based impacts of undocumented immigration on the United States[1][2][4][7].
Citations:
[1] www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
[2] www.newamericaneconomy.org
[3] cmsny.org
[4] www.ilr.cornell.edu
[5] budget.house.gov
[6] econofact.org
[7] www.congress.gov
Swallow it.
Too many LIBERALS.
#5 | Posted by ScottS
"REEEEEEEEE!!"
Hahaha! JFC you're dumb. Swallow it.