Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is urging Congress to pass legislation to deal with Puerto Ricosdebt crisis, saying that without action the economy and welfare of the U.S. territory will continue to deteriorate. During an interview on the Bloomberg network, Lew said that Puerto Rican hospitals are ill-equipped to deal with the spread of the Zika virus, that schools are closing and that the failing economy is driving people out. You have broad economic stress causing people to leave the island, Lew said May 3, 2016. Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year. For an island with a total population around 3.5 million, thats a serious exodus. We decided to see if Lew was right. Looking at the data Census data showsa small, but steady increase in the number of people leaving Puerto Rico for the mainland. More than 360,000 people went from Puerto Rico to the United States btween 2010 and 2014. However, the Census data isnt out for 2015, which is the year Lew was talking about. So where did Lew get that figure? The estimate comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation, which tracks passengers departing from and arriving to the island. The Treasury Department has relied on this databefore, according to department spokesperson Daniel Watson. The data show about 90,000 more people left Puerto Rico for the United States than came in. *The American Community Surveyshowing total out-migration of Puerto Rico to the US mainland **T-100Domestic Market Data(US Carriers) None of this data includes people leaving Puerto Rico for somewhere other than the United States. Islanders mostly tend to head to the mainland, however, countries in Latin America, the Dominican Republic and Spain have been attracting Puerto Ricans as well. So the total number of migrants leaving the island is actually larger. Recent qualitative interviews by researchers from the Center for Puerto Rican Studies found that the people leaving Puerto Rico in the greatest numbers are nurses, paramedics, police officers, teachers, college professors and lawyers. They are often recruited and going to states with growing Hispanic populations in need of bilingual professionals. The surge in departures has led to the social media tag #yonomequito (I am not going anywhere). On Facebook this movement has been liked by70,000 people. Our ruling Lew said that almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year. That appears to be close. Airline data suggests about 89,000 more people departed Puerto Rico for the United States then entered it in 2015. While thats not a perfect estimate to measure out-migration, all the population trends suggest Puerto Rico is experiencing a surge in out-migration, as residents leave for better jobs and prospects in the United States. Lews statement is Mostly True.
On 15 February 2016, the Facebook page "The Original Wake Up People" posted a years-old memefeaturing a quote ostensibly uttered by Vladimir Putin:   This is not a real quote from the Russian president.The above-displayed quote has been circulating since 2009 in one form or another (usually in the form of a meme such as the above image) when it was originally published on the satirical web siteScooter's Report: published Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin haswarned the Obama administration against adopting further socialism, saying Russian historyclearly proves it is a recipe for failure. "Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history," saidPutin. "President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy." Scooter's Report, whichfrequently featured anti-Obama rhetoric, has adisclaimer on the web site that states, "Like I have to tell you: This isfictitious satire and any resemblance to persons, places, or events is coincidental." Putin has, however, addressed the responsibilities of businesses to the community in the past: addressed We need business to understand its social responsibility, that the main task and objective for a business is not to generate extra income and to become rich and transfer the money abroad, but to look and evaluate what a businessman has done for the country, for the people, on whose account he or she has become so rich. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In late December and early January 2021, increasing COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person became a major issue in the Georgia Senate run-off elections. The campaign pitch, made in some form by Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, and Joe Biden leading up to that Jan. 5, 2021 election, was that a blue (Democrat-controlled) U.S. Senate would ensure passage of those $2,000 checks. On Jan. 20, Biden unveiled his $1.9 trillion COVID stimulus plan. It proposed issuing $1,400 checks to each person. Some have interpreted the $1,400 as a broken promise, despite the fact that the goal, since December, had always been to achieve a total per person payment of $2,000. The $600 checks already approved by Congress began disbursement starting on Dec. 29, 2020. Here, Snopes takes a granular look at the issue. 1.9 trillion proposed On Dec. 22, 2020, President Donald Trump shocked congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle by threatening to block passage of a third COVID-19 stimulus package that had been negotiated for months and that his administration played a crucial role in shaping. The problem, Trump stated in a video Tweeted out that night, was that the $600 per person cap was not enough. "I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple," he said. shocked video In a confusing moment of limited bipartisanship, Democratic members of Congress agreed with Trump and launched a last-minute campaign to amend the relief bill to include the $2,000 checks requested by Trump. Congressional Republicans, for the most part, opposed the increase. An attempt to raise the amount, pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, to the level Trump had requested failed on Dec. 24. Ultimately, Trump signed the originally negotiated bill  which included the $600 per person cap  on Dec. 27.  failed signed In response, on Dec. 28, Democrats in the House passed a stand-alone bill designed to make Trump's vision of $2,000 per person a reality. The text of the bill proposed, in part, to amend the portion of the recently passed relief package "by striking '$600' each place it appears and inserting '$2,000', and by striking '$1,200' each place it appears and inserting '$4,000.' The move was described by The Associated Press at the time as "all but dar[ing] Republicans to break with Trump." text was described That "dare" came at a complicated political moment. The two run-off elections for Georgia would determine the balance of power in the Senate. Both Ossoff and Warnock capitalized on the moment, immediately pushing both their GOP rivals in Georgia to support the House bill upping the payment to $2,000. capitalized On Dec. 28, the same day that the House passed its proposed increase to COVID relief checks, Warnock tweeted that, "Georgians could have gotten $2,000 relief checks. You're only getting $600  because [opponent Kelly Loeffler] refused to fight for more." That same day, Ossoff tweeted that his opponent "David Perdue didnt even want the first round of stimulus checks." On election day, Ossoff's final pitch to voters included the statement, "We will be able to pass $2,000 stimulus checks for the people next week." tweeted tweeted https://streamable.com/tehygd President-elect Biden had made the same general point a day earlier at a rally for Ossoff and Warnock. "By electing Jon and the reverend, you can make an immediate difference in your own lives," Biden said on Jan. 4, "because their election will put an end to the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check. That money that will go out the door immediately." https://streamable.com/jckvga On Jan. 20, Biden revealed his COVID relief plan in an executive order calling for additional payments of $1,400 per person. This led some to interpret Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff's pre-election discussion as a disingenuous bait-and-switch, promising a certain amount of money for votes and then refusing to deliver on that promise. "$2,000 means $2,000," Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post following the release of the plan, "$2,000 does not mean $1,400." Other critics accused Biden and Ossoff of "purchasing" peoples' votes and then refusing to "pay up." told Those arguing that Biden et al. broke a political promise by proposing $1,400 checks on top of the already approved $600 ones misrepresent the political debate surrounding COVID-19 relief efforts. Until the "broken promise" talking point emerged, the two political "camps" were the $600 advocates (most congressional Republicans) and the $2,000 advocates (Trump and most congressional Democrats). At no point was there ever a "$2,600 camp." Before the end of December, it appeared logistically possible to modify the amount of money mandated in the previous COVID-relief package through that House bill passed on Dec. 28. According to reporting in The New York Times, however, the Treasury Department "started making direct deposit payments" on Dec. 29, and started mailing checks the next day. reporting Ocasio-Cortez, who suggested Biden's plan did not fulfill the campaign promise of $2,000 checks, explicitly advocated the same solution on Dec. 23, proposing an amendment that would increase payments in the Trump package by $1,400 per person: same solution   Looking back at the statements made by Biden and others, references to "$2,000 checks" must be to these legislative efforts  including those advocated for and voted on by Ocasio-Cortez. Because the Senate cannot "block" legislation that has not yet been proposed, Biden's reference to "the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check" clearly refers to the Senate's unwillingness to take up the House amendment upping the $600 checks to $2,000. reference The end result of the solution Ocasio-Cortez, Biden, Ossoff and Warnock proposed or advocated for in late December would have been a total of $2,000 per person. The end result of the Biden package, if passed, would be a total of $2,000 per person. Indeed, the claim that any politician was arguing for a total of $2,600 per person in late December is completely untenable, and belied by Ocasio-Cortez's support for the $2,000 solutions advocated for by herself and other Democrats at that time. The central issue is this: As the debate about the inadequacy of $600 checks versus $2,000 checks was raging in Congress, the $600 plan had already become law. Money was already being dispersed. To achieve the total of $2,000 advocated for by Trump and Democrats in late December, an additional payment of $1,400 passed through new legislation would be required. Biden's plan, the specifics of which are currently being worked through in the House at the time of this reporting, would achieve that same end result. currently There is a plausible argument, however, that Biden and Ossoff over-promised regarding the rapidity with which a Biden administration and a blue Senate could bring about rapid disbursement of these funds. As the House has yet to approve the legislative package proposed by Biden, the money did not "go out the door immediately," as Biden promised on Jan 4. Nor would that legislative package be passed, as Ossoff claimed it would, "the next week" after his election. The first $600 payments already approved have yet to reach many Americans. many In late December 2020, Democrats united with Trump to push Congressional Republicans to increase COVID-19 stimulus payments from $600 to $2,000 per person. The universal call by those on the Left, at the time, was for a total of $2,000 per person. Ultimately, the $600 plan passed while the viability of $2,000 payments was still gaining traction. References to "$2,000 checks" made in January by Biden and by Georgia's Democratic Senate candidates were to increase existing payments up to $2,000  not to issue a new check for $2,000 in addition to the amount already approved. Because Biden and Ossoff's statements are consistent with the package Democrats ultimately proposed, but because their timeline for getting those payments out the door was too optimistic, we rank the claim that Biden's proposed $1,400 checks are a broken promise as "false." On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations  that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information:  America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed. Claim:  "Poison pill" amendment inserted into Health Care Bill by Senator Reid makes proposed bill unamendable if passed. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! [Rest of article here.] here   Origins:  The gist of this piece, a reproduction of a Washington Examiner editorial, is that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada furtively slipped language into a health care reform bill which would absolutely prevent Congress from ever modifying or repealing the section of the bill to which it applied.  Although the language cited does appear in the bill, it has been quoted out of context and its applicability has been exaggerated. editorial It is true that beginning on page 1,001 of the referenced measure, Section 3403 reads in part:  '... it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.'"  However, that sentence fragment is a misleading, selective excerpt which doesn't provide the full context.  The passage reads, in full: measure (A) IN GENERAL   It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).  (B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2). (C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. What that means, in effect, is that Congress may not make modifications to the referenced section if such modifications do not meet criteria specified elsewhere  ["subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)"] in the measure.  Those criteria are: (A) REQUIREMENTS.  Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the following requirements:(i) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination under paragraph (7)(A) in the determination year, the proposal shall include recommendations so that the proposal as a whole (after taking into account recommendations under clause (v)) will result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending in the implementation year that is at least equal to the applicable savings target established under paragraph (7)(B) for such implementation year. In determining whether a proposal meets the requirement of the preceding sentence, reductions in Medicare program spending during the 3-month period immediately preceding the implementation year shall be counted to the extent that such reductions are a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in the proposal for a change in the payment rate for an item or service that was effective during such period pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A). (C) NO INCREASE IN TOTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM SPENDING.  Each proposal submitted under this section shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation. In other words,  these prolix passages do not absolutely bar any changes to the measure; they're simply protections that prohibit Congress from enacting modifications to the referenced section that would create an increase in net Medicare program spending or cause it to go over budget.  Moreover, page 1002 specifically states that such protections may be waived by a three-fifths vote of the Senate: (D) WAIVER.  This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (E) APPEALS.  An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph. Last updated:  22 March 2010 In January 2018, shortly after the publication of the book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, which suggested that President Trump was unfit for office, the President took to Twitter to defend his mental stability: ....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018 January 6, 2018  ....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2018 January 6, 2018  Trump's tweets sparked a flurry of political punditry (and fodder for comedians). On 8 January 2018, the Facebook page "Politicked" published an image purportedly showing former presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton mocking Trump's claim that he became President of the United States on his first try: published   Politicked describes itself as a "left wing political satire" group, which creates its own "original and biting memes." The images of these purported tweets are fake. We searched the Twitter timelines for Obama, Bush, and Clinton and didn't find any of these messages. It's also unlikely that the three former presidents posted and subsequently deleted the tweets. Messages sent from President Obama and Clinton are routinely retweeted thousands of times (Bush hasn't used the service since 2010) yet we found no retweets linking back to the original messages.  Obama Bush Clinton Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely for these three former presidents to coordinate a social media joke simply to mock President Trump, before getting cold feed and deleting their posts without being detected by a mainstream media source.  It is true that Obama, Clinton, and Bush all won presidential elections on their first attempts. Trump's claim that he won the presidency on his first try, however, is a matter of debate (and of how serious one considers his first attempt). He ran for the nomination of the Reform Party in 2000 and appeared on the primary ballot in two states. Trump withdrew from the race before the election. 2000 states Although the 2000 campaign was the only time Trump actually entered any primary races prior to 2016, the real estate mogul toyed with the idea so often that his political aspirations found their way onto the popular cartoon show The Simpsons.  toyed aspirations Helmore, Edward.  "How Trumps Political Playbook Evolved Since He First Ran for President in 2000."
  The Guardian.  5 February 2017. TV Guide.  "Here's a Timeline of Every Time Donald Trump Ran for President."
  18 July 2015. Helmore, Edward.  "How Trumps Political Playbook Evolved Since He First Ran for President in 2000."
  The Guardian.  5 February 2017. Claim:  John McCain would not be eligible to draw a pension after serving two terms as president. Status:  False. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, August 2008] Retirement - Mr. President A point to ponder ... A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old. Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension. Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November. How's that for non partisan thinking? Origins:  We're not sure whether the above-quoted bit of electioneering about presidential pensions was meant to be taken seriously, or whether it was intended to be light-hearted or sardonic, but regardless its basic premise is incorrect. It is true in broad terms that since John McCain is twenty-five years older than Barack Obama (they'll be 72 and 47 years old, respectively, at the time of the next  presidential inauguration), the former would probably draw a smaller aggregate pension as a former president than the latter would.  (There are no guarantees, of course, since we never know what Fate might have in store for anyone.)  It is not true, however, that if John McCain served two terms as president, he would draw no pension at all due to his having reached the maximum age limit (80) by then.  The pension payments allocated to former presidents are lifetime benefits and do not end or expire once a recipient reaches a particular age. Under the terms of the Former Presidents Act (FPA), former presidents are entitled to "a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive department" (currently $191,300).  This pension is a lifetime benefit that begins "immediately upon a President's departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day."  (Presidential widows receive lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year.) FPA In fact, pensions constitute a relatively small fraction of the federal funds that are provided for the maintenance of former presidents, who also receive Secret Service protection, free mailing privileges, travel funds, and allowances to maintain and staff their offices.  (Secret Service protection for presidents who began serving after 1 January 1997 is no longer a lifetime benefit and is now limited to ten years.)  As the chart below indicates, these additional benefits typically add up to far more than the base pension amount:  All of these expenditures on former presidents are but a drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. federal budget, which currently totals about $3 trillion per year. budget Since both John McCain and Barack Obama are members of the U.S. Senate, whichever one doesn't win the upcoming presidential election will still have a congressional pension to look forward to. Last updated:  14 August 2008    Sources:   Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin.  "Former Presidents Cost U.S. Taxpayers Big Bucks."   The [Toledo] Blade.  7 January 2007.    Smith, Stephanie.  "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits."   Congressional Research Service.  18 March 2008. On 21 April 2016, the web siteThe Good Lord Above published an article reportingthat a Noah's Ark Christian theme park then under construction in Kentucky had been destroyed by a flood: The new 'Noah's Ark' Theme Parkin Williamstown, Kentucky, was destroyed in a flood earlier today. The sudden flash flood only seemed to affect the location of the Ark Encounter Theme Park, which was in the final phases of construction. "From a meteorological standpoint, this is quite confusing," said Dan Schmidt, a forecaster with the National Weather Service. "There were no storm clouds in the area. We're calling this flood an act of God." While it's true that a Noah's Ark-themed attraction was  built in Kentucky, the project was not destroyed by a flood.  Thereporting of such was a spoof fromThe Good Lord Above, a web site responsible for several other religiously-based fake news stories, such as anarticle proclaiming that Donald Trump had called Jesus a "socialist loser" and astory reporting thatBernie Sanders savedthree children from a house fire. To their credit, The Good Lord Abovemakes the site's humorous nature very clearon their "About" page: attraction built socialist saved God made the world. Then he flooded it. Then God went to sleep for 2000 years or so. Anyway, eventually God woke up and felt pretty bad for what he'd done in the past. In 2011, after years of therapy, God started his Divine God Facebook Page to restore his good name. In his infinite wisdom, in 2015 God launched this Holy Website, TheGoodLordAbove.com. Thou shalt remember that The First Amendment protects satire as a form of free speech and expression. TheGoodLordAbove uses invented names in all of its stories, except in cases where public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental. TheGoodLordAbove is not intended for readers under 18 years of age. The Ark Encounter Christian theme park finally opened in Kentucky on 7 July 2016, with a fully intact ark as one of its exhibits: opened Immigration is a sensitive and touchy issue, and never more so than in the United States during an election year. Thus, when stories started to emerge in 2016 about a group of veterans of the U.S. military living in Mexico after they had been deported from the United States (a story we previously reported on) it seemed natural to question what looked like nothing more than a chunk of political kryptonite. Mexico previously reported However, deported veterans exist, although no one  not even the Department of Homeland Security  knows how many. Their issue has been slowly brought into mainstream American consciousness largely by the efforts of committed activists in Tijuana. exist many "The Bunker," also known as the Deported Veterans Support House, is in a small cinderbrick building tucked away on a side street in Mexico's border town of Tijuana, and is frequented by veterans of every branch of the United States military, who fought everywhere from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Former Army paratrooper Hector Barajas, 39, opened it to be a gathering place and a refuge for veterans who, like him, had been deported: The Bunker deported "I started The Bunker because there was a need," Barajas told us. He said since his deportation, he had been meeting others like him living in Tijuana, and discovered that they lived throughout Mexico  but not just Mexico. There are hundreds of deported military vets living in at least twenty countries, he said. Since then, The Bunker has since become less a refuge and more a cause: Our vision is to end the deportations of Deported Veterans, repatriate the ones who have already been deported, and offer support until they all go home. We shouldn't honor our Deported Veterans by allowing them to return upon death. Honor them by allowing them to return home to their families and give them any benefits that they are eligible for. It may come as a surprise to learn that serving in the United States military does not automatically confer citizenship, but it doesn't. It can smooth the way, provided the aspiring citizen is aware of what they need to do in order to apply for citizenship and gets it done within a certain timeframe. However, it's not uncommon for enlistees to wrongly assume (having never been told otherwise) they have done all they need to do in order to be awarded citizenship, and thus all they have to do after their honorable discharge is wait. citizenship timeframe   Sometimes, too, there are bureaucratic foulups. One man was deported after he was unable to attend a hearing, despite his reason: he was in the hospital receiving surgery at the time. Others do everything the way they're supposed to, filing their paperwork and appearing at their meetings, but still get deported, and no one seems to know exactly why. Once they are outside the U.S., they maintain a legal right to VA benefits such as healthcare, and to whatever funds they might be entitled, but they have no way of getting back into the United States to obtain that assistance, and there are no satellite offices outside the country to help them. VA benefits Because these particular veterans are either in the United States on green cards or without documentation after their discharges, they can be deported with cause, or for no reason at all. Past and present members of the armed forces are supposed to receive special consideration during deportation hearings, but the guidelines are inconsistently applied. consideration However, some of these veterans have spent time in prison for assault or drug offenses, which makes their situation more difficult to parse, at least politically. Elected officials (and candidates) who might ordinarily be in full-throated cry about the importance of military rights tend to go oddly silent when confronted with the spectres of undocumented soldiers. Sympathy for those wounded on the battlefield under the American flag suddenly falters when it turns out they had entered the country without documentation years before. Miguel Perez, a United States Army veteran, falls under that category. The 39-year-old Illinois man, who served two tours in Afghanistan and who has been in the U.S. since he was eight, was convicted of a drug trafficking offense in 2008. The green card holder had served half of a 15-year prison sentence when Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement took him for deportation proceedings. After losing an appeal, Perez was deported in March 2018: deported Perez was flown from Gary, Indiana, to Brownsville, Texas, where officers escorted him across the border and turned him over to Mexican authorities, ICE officials said. Perez appeared shocked by his treatment during his final moments on U.S. soil. An ICE agent who described himself as a fellow veteran told Perez they would "fix this" while leading him to a gate, Perez said. "When we go there he just closed the gate behind me and he said, 'OK, we're done here,'" he said. "He said, 'You see those green lights? You go that way and when you get there just ask for help.'" Perez recalls thinking, "Really? This is it?" The veteran said he immediately contemplated suicide but then said he felt he needed to keep walking and continue the fight to let others know how he and other undocumented veterans are treated by the U.S. Unless something changes for them, the only way most of the deported veterans will be able to return to the United States is by dying. By law, all military veterans (except those who have been dishonorably discharged) are entitled to burial in a national cemetery, and immigration laws don't apply to corpses. entitled apply On 20 April 2016, lawmakers introduced a bill to readmit military veterans who were deported and who were not previously convicted of serious crimes. It would also prevent the removal of military veterans from the U.S. in the future. bill On 13 April 2018, Hector Barajas, the deported veteran who was one of the first to shine a spotlight on their plight, received his American citizenship, potentially paving the way for hundreds of other former United States military members:   Kao, Joanna and Vo, Lam Thuy. "Deported Vets: Life in the Bunker."
Al Jazeera.  26 September 2014. Siegal, Erin. "U.S. Veterans 'Banished' to Mexico."
KPBS.org. 12 November 2012. Tobia, P.J. "They Served Their Country. Now They Can't Live In It."
PBS.org.  10 September 2015. "Naturalization Through Military Service: Fact Sheet."
USCIS.gov. Update [13 April 2018, 2:20 P.M.]: Added detail about Hector receiving U.S. citizenship. After Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saluted legislation potentially giving voters more sway over local property taxes, we wondered afresh about how Texas ranks nationally in terms of property tax burden. Patrick, talking upa proposalhatched by fellow Republicans led by Houston state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, said in a Nov. 29, 2016,press release: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation, and Texans have told us loud and clear that common-sense property tax reform legislation is long overdue. In January 2016,we found Mostly Truethe same claim by a Bexar County legislative aspirant. The business-orientedTax Foundation, a national group, drew on 2013 Census Bureau datato mapthe average amount of residential property tax paid as a percentage of home value state by state. By that metric, the Texas rate of 1.9 percent proved higher than the rates in 44 states; it was topped by the rates for Wisconsin, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois and No. 1 New Jersey at 2.38 percent. Still, we noted, property taxes in Texas are levied locally in Texas, resulting in ample differences in the burden depending on where taxpayers live. Rankings yet to be updated Not a lot has changed since we reached that conclusion. For starters, the rankings  showing Texas with the sixth highest mean effective property tax rate on owner-occupied housing  havent been updated, the foundations Jared Walczak said to our inquiry. Yet, Walczak also told us by email, this does not make Texas a high-tax state. Texas has chosen to rely more heavily on property taxes, and less heavily on other taxes, than many peer states, foregoing some altogether. The state's tax structure is an important part of its economic success, and it is inevitable that, when a state foregoes an individual income tax, some other tax will be somewhat higher than it might otherwise have been. In fact, the foundation has previously reported that in 2012Texas ranked 46thin state-local taxes per resident. Why property taxes can be high Property taxes might be higher here becauseunlike most states, Texas levies no state income tax. Notably too, unlike in some states, Texas property tax rates are set locally, not by the state,according to the Texas state comptroller, with government units spending the revenue to provide local services including schools, streets and roads, police and fire protection and many others. Moreover, the state lacks the constitutional authority to levy a property tax, as the Texas Legislative Council noted in a2002 overviewof local taxes statewide. Generally under the current system, a county appraisal district does an annual property valuation, then each area city, county, school and special district (like hospital and road districts) sets the respective tax rate necessary to raise the money needed to fund the related adopted budget. And according to Census data, property taxes in 2013, the latest year of available data, were the source of 81.6 percent of local tax revenue in Texas (the national average for this figure was 46.7 percent). Updated information is to be posted Dec. 9, 2016, bureau spokesman Sean Patrick told us by email. Regional differences When we looked into this topic before, advocates including Dick Lavine of the liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities and Dale Craymer of the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association suggested we consider acomparison studyby the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy showing that property owners in the biggest cities of Texas, especially Houston and San Antonio, had some of the highest property taxes in 2014 compared with large cities in other states. That remained so the next year, according to aJune 2016 institute studyindicating, for instance, that El Paso homeowners in 2015 ranked No. 3 among the countrys 50 most populous cities in homestead property taxes on a $150,000 property or $300,000 property. Among the 50 cities, homestead taxes in large Texas cities including Austin, Dallas and San Antonio ranked No. 5 (Fort Worth) to No. 13 (Houston), according to the report. The disparity between property taxes by county comes through in real-dollar terms, although measures of taxes in terms of dollars paid can be distorted by the difference in home prices from county to county. A Tax Foundationmapshows in real dollars just how much property taxes vary from county to county based on IRS data reflecting the amount of real estate taxes deducted from federal taxes. In 2013, Texas counties with residents paying the most were Travis ($7,553), Kendall ($6,916) and Fort Bend ($6,813), while those paying the least are Dickens ($1,325), Stonewall ($1,425) and Hudspeth ($1,450). Another factor to think about when considering the property tax burden for the average Texan is the rate of home ownership. The Tax Foundation map showing Texas tied for sixth-highest in property taxes considered the percentage of home value thats paid in property taxes on owner-occupied housing. In 2015, 61.1 percent of Texas housing was owner-occupied, tying the state with Oregon for the nations sixth-lowest rate,according tothe Census Bureau. Our ruling Patrick said: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation. While it may be true that on average, Texas property taxes are the sixth-highest in the nation, the actual taxpayer burden on residents can vary greatly by locality, making the average less representative. We rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check