Chase Bank Won't Allow Cash Deposits?
Claim:  Chase Bank does not allow cash deposits made by non-account holders.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Chase bank this morning would not accept cash deposit, when the person depositing the cash was not the account holder.  I was told that "banking laws prohibit someone who is not the account holder from depositing cash to an account." (This actually happened to me!) Origins:  In January 2014, JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest bank in the U.S., announced that in order to head off potential money laundering issues, it would be implementing a policy that requires customers making cash deposits to show identification and that prohibits customers from depositing cash into personal accounts on which they are not listed as account holders: announced  The policy applies only to cash deposits (not negotiables such as checks or money orders) and only to deposits made into consumer and business accounts (not investment, Treasury and commercial accounts). The restrictions, for example, limit the ability of parents to deposit cash into the accounts of their children who might be away from home (e.g., at college or on vacation) if the parents are not listed as joint account holders, but Chase customers can add authorized signers to their accounts to work around this limitation. According to a Chase spokesperson, the policy change was related to efforts to bolster the bank's anti-money laundering efforts: "It's an excellent idea. I guarantee other banks will follow suit very shortly  if they're smart," said Annemarie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches anti-money laundering and counterterrorism at Fordham Law School. "The hard thing with cash is you can't tell where it's coming from once it goes into an account," said McAvoy. "I think Chase is trying very hard to be ahead of the curve. Part of it is they are under the microscope [due to a $2 billion settlement over criminal charges related to the Madoff scandal], but I think they are really trying to do the right thing." settlement It is not accurate to say that this limitation on cash deposits is "banking law," however.  Banks are required by law to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000, but they are not required to turn down cash deposits made by non-account holders  the latter restriction is purely a voluntary policy that Chase has chosen to implement on its own; other banks may or may not follow suit. Last updated:  20 September 2014
The blobfish is often regarded as the "world's ugliest fish" (it was even "awarded" this title during a British Science Festival in 2013) in large part because most people encounter this deep-water dwelling creature after it's been hastily pulled to the surface in a fishing net. The change in pressure between the blobfish's natural environment (a depth of about 3,000 feet) and the open air has a dramatic effect on the fish's body, and causes this deep-water creature to resemble, well, a blob. British Science Festival in 2013   The non-profit environmental group Ocean Conservancy writes: There are several species of blobfish in the family Psychrolutidae, all of which are deep sea dwellers that make their homes between 2,000 and 4,000 feet below sea level. At these depths, the pressure is up to 120 times greater than at the surface, forcing blobfish to adapt. They don't have much bone or muscle, allowing the pressure of the deep sea to provide their with body structural support. When brought to the surface, the blobfish decompresses, giving it the iconic gelatinous look that we all know and love.  In its natural habitat, however, the blobfish is much less blobby. In April 2021, an image started circulating on social media that supposedly showed a blobfish in its natural habitat:   This is a genuine picture of a blobfish that was taken circa 2017 at anaquarium in Japan. While this may not be the blobfish's natural habitat, it does show a living blobfish underwater. circa 2017 In 2020, the Aquamarine Fukushima aquarium caught another bobflish that was put on display. There are several photographs and videos of this blobfish, which which they lovingly named Bob, on the aquariums social media accounts: Aquamarine Fukushima aquarium   Here's another video of Bob the Blob feeding:  The aquarium writes: The fish (Psychrolutes phrictus) is called blobfish or blob sculpin in English. Because the fish is grotesque appearance when it is caught as by catch in bottom trawling nets. But the living blobfish (we call Bob) is so cute with a big head, small eyes and many small fleshy threads like mustache. Bob started eating sweet shrimp (Pandalus eous). We believe that Bob will live long. Come see cute Bob! For a true look at a blobfish in its natural environment, here's a video taken by the E/V Nautilus research vessel off the California coast in 2016: In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. On 6 December 2018, an article reporting that former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama trashed Air Force One after the funeral of former president George H.W. Bush was published by the WeAreTheLLOD website, which is part of the "Last Line of Defense" network of junk news sites: article President Trump was gracious enough to loan his personal airplane to the Bush family to transport dead President George H.W. Bush back home to Kennebunkport, Maine. They invited all the other past presidents and even the illegal Obama. In return, the grieving family showed their appreciation by leaving the plane a mess and vandalizing the bathroom and kitchen.   This was not a genuine news article, as WeAreTheLlod.com and the rest of the Last Line of Defense network are junk news sites that have a long history of publishing misinformation. Last Line of Defense  This article also included a number of obvious hints about the satirical nature of its content. For example, the label "Dead People and Satire with Hot Green Chili" can be glimpsed below the article's title. The web site banner also features the tagline "Information You Probably Shouldn't Trust" and the footer states that the site was paid for by the "liberal trolls of America." As well, all of the hyper-links in this article lead to unrelated content. For instance, where the text references the alleged legal terms "hapneus corpum and juris prumidential," it links to a Google Translation page for the sentence: "Because they don't exist and are possibly the dumbest things ever conceived." Eagleton, Flagg.  "BREAKING: Bush, Clinton, Obama Funeral Party Trashes Air Force One."
  WeAretheLLOD.com.  6 December 2018. One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. On 18 September 2016, the "Donald Trump for President" Facebook page posted a photograph of Hillary Clinton along with the claim that the Democratic presidential nominee had spent over $1 billion on negative attack ads targeting Trump, but she had spent no money at all on political ads touting her own political record and accomplishments:  The image asks viewers to "share if you agree," but its claims are not up for debate. They are false.  First, the Hillary Clinton campaign has not spent "over $1 billion on negative Trump ads on TV." Although Clinton has run a number of negative TV spots attacking her rival, she has not spent anywhere near $1 billion on such ads. Shortly after this image was published in September 2016, NBC partner Advertising Analytics released a report detailing how much money each of the candidates had spent on ads. They recorded that Clinton's campaign spent about $90 million on ads during the general election (up to 20 September 2016), while pro-Clinton groups had spent an additional $60 million or so: report Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate Donald Trump and pro-Trump outside groups in the 2016 advertising race. According to ad-spending data from NBC partner Advertising Analytics, Clinton's campaign has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, versus $17.3 million for Trump's campaign. That's more than a 5-to-1 advantage for Clinton. And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump. That's almost a 5-to-1 advantage. It's also false to say that Clinton has never released a political ad touting her own accomplishments. The Clinton campaign has issued a number of videos touting her accomplishments from her 30-plus years of public service, including one that highlighted her work with children and health care and another featuring President Obama talking about Clinton's many achievements (including becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party).  children and health care achievements Even if we assume the original image referred only to paid television advertising, it's still wrong in light of examples such as a June 2016 Clinton TV spot that showcased several highlights of her political career: The Lone Star state is home to its very own state-regulated power grid known as the Texas Interconnection. The question of whether Texas produces its own power is one that the Snopes team has seen time and again. We often see this trend during times of power crisis, as was the case in 2021, when the states power grid failed, or when energy politics and prices are making the headlines. This was the case in June 2022 when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican representing Texas, tweeted that the impact of President Biden being beholden to the Green New Deal radicals in his party has electricity costs through the roof in Texas. failed June 2022 Green New Deal  Yes, it is true that Texas has its own power grid. The Texas Interconnection (TIS) is one of five alternating current (AC) power grids known in north America as interconnections, according to the U.S. Office of Electricity. TIS spans most of the state and covers all of the electric utilities maintained under the system, each of which is electrically tied together and operates at a synchronized frequency of a 60-hertz average during normal system conditions. U.S. Office of Electricity  Public Domain Texas ownership over its power grid is not necessarily for technical reasons, but more for political ones, reported the Texas Tribune in 2011: namely, to avoid the feds. Power grids that cross state lines are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, which is responsible for the national energy program, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates the sale and transmission of electricity in interstate commerce. reported But because TIS does not cross state lines, the system can avoid regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is instead managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Some 26 million Texans and 90% of the electrical load rely on over 52,700 miles of transmission lines contained within the TIS. As a nonprofit, ERCOT is subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. ERCOT 90% 52,700 miles Public Utility Commission of Texas Its no secret that Texas is rich in energy. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that Texas produces more electricity than any other state, and nearly twice as much as Florida, which comes in at second place. Energy rates are typically determined by a combination of fuel costs, power plant availability, variations in demand, and availability of generation sources, notes the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This cost varies from minute to minute, and in hot climates like Texas, prices are highest in the summer when total demand for air conditioning increases. reports U.S. Energy Information Administration In the Lone Star State, those prices are set by ERCOT. To understand the history of ERCOT, we should also take a quick look back at the U.S. power grid through the 20th century. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Power Act, which gave the Federal Power Commission the power to oversee interstate electricity sales. But Texas wanted to remain out of federal oversight, particularly as its grid did not cross state lines. signed The establishment of TIS can trace its history back to World War II, when 10 independent power grids across the state connected to send excess power to the coast for manufacturing, according to ERCOT. Similarly, utility companies across the nation began to tie themselves together to be more productive, organized, and responsive both in the event of an emergency and to more efficiently manufacture and export goods to troops overseas. ERCOT tie themselves together Following a blackout on Nov. 9, 1965, when 30 million people in the Northeastern U.S. lost power, legislators created the National Electric Reliability Council, now known as the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Five years later, ERCOT was founded to manage the Texas grid in accordance with national standards but still out of the way of federal fingers. (For more ERCOT history, see this explainer published by NBC Austin affiliate KXAN.) founded this explainer We should also note that the Texas power supply is neither totally independent nor does it cover the entire state. El Paso is on its own grid, as are parts of northeastern and southeastern Texas. In 2011 following rolling blackouts, Texas also imported some power from Mexico, as well as two ties to the Eastern U.S. grid.) imported Sources Archive.Ph. https://archive.ph/oiee1. Accessed 7 June 2022. Cohn, Julie. When the Grid Was the Grid: The History of North Americas Brief Coast-to-Coast Interconnected Machine [Scanning Our Past]. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 107, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 23243. IEEE Xplore, https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2880938. DG - Distributed Generation. https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/electric/business/dg/dg.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2022. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Electric Reliability Council of Texas. https://www.ercot.com/. Accessed 7 June 2022. ERCOT Organization Backgrounder. https://www.ercot.com/news/mediakit/backgrounder#:~:text=Founded%20in%201970%2C%20ERCOT%20is,grid%20serving%20most%20of%20Texas. Accessed 7 June 2022. EXPLAINER: Why the Power Grid Failed in Texas and Beyond. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/02/17/why-the-power-grid-failed-in-texas-and-beyond/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Galbraith, Kate. Texplainer: Why Does Texas Have Its Own Power Grid? The Texas Tribune, 8 Feb. 2011, https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/. Helman, Christopher. Rolling Blackouts Force Texas To Import Power From Mexico. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/02/03/rolling-blackouts-force-texas-to-import-power-from-mexico/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Learn More About Interconnections. Energy.Gov, https://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/recovery-act-0. Accessed 7 June 2022. OAKTrust Home. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/. Accessed 7 June 2022. Prices and Factors Affecting Prices - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php#:~:text=Changes%20in%20prices%20generally%20reflect,to%20meet%20the%20increased%20demand. Accessed 7 June 2022. The History of ERCOT: How Texas Became the Only State with Its Own Power Grid. KXAN Austin, 24 Feb. 2021, https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/the-history-of-ercot-how-texas-became-the-only-state-with-its-own-power-grid/. When Elon Musk launched the Falcon Heavy rocket (and its payload of a Tesla Roadster) in February 2018, many saw it as a giant step toward commercial space travel and sending a human to Mars. Tesla Roadster Others saw something slightly more cynical, namely a giant advertisement: advertisement Elon Musk pulled off a double marketing coup with the first successful test launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket, the flagship of his private space-flight company SpaceX, and the subsequent debut of its payloada Tesla Roadster driven by a dummy nicknamed Starmanas the first car in space. While the launch was clearly one of the most dramatic moments of livestreaming in recent memory, its the live YouTube feed of Musks own cherry-red Roadster circling the Earth that will perhaps generate the biggest publicity boost for Musks emerging electric-car company. With a famously nonexistent ad budget, Tesla just secured a place in auto marketing history. In the wake of this monumental achievement of space travel advertising, a photograph purportedly showing a disapproving Carl Sagan holding a "No Billboards in Space" sign started recirculating on the internet:   This image isn't real. This photograph has been circulating online since at least 2010. A Redditor claimed in a 2011 posting of the image that they had created it for a photoshop contest on the web site Fark, but we were unable to locate the original contest.  2010 claimed created Regardless, this has image has been doctored. The original image showed Sagan holding one of the "Pioneer Plaques," not a sign reading "No Billboards in Space."  The Pioneer Plaques were launched into space in the early 1970s aboard the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecrafts. The idea was that the plaques, which contained a pictorial message, would relay some information about the spacecraft's origins in case it was intercepted by an extraterrestrial life form: message   It seemed to us appropriate that this spacecraft, the first man-made object to leave the solar system, should carry some indication of the locale, epoch, and nature of its builders. We do not know the likelihood of the Galaxy being filled with advanced technological societies capable of and interested in intercepting such a spacecraft. It is clear, however, that such interception is a very long term proposition.  Griner, David.  "With a $0 Ad Budget, Tesla Just Pulled Off One of the Greatest Marketing Stunts Ever"
  Adweek.  7 February 2018. Sagan, Carl.  "A Message from Earth."
  Science Magazine.  25 February 1972. The insecticide chlorpyrifos, sold under the brand names Lorsban, Dursban, and others, has been the subject of regulatory battles for decades. It was first introduced as a pesticide in 1965, and it remains the most commonly applied pesticide in the United States. In 1996, the Clinton administration signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act, which mandated regular scientific reviews and safety evaluations of existing pesticides based on childrens health safety benchmarks. One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses: Lorsban 1965 remains 2000 This action comes after completing the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted. This action  the result of an agreement with the manufacturers  will significantly minimize potential health risks from exposure to Dursban, also called chlorpyrifos, for all Americans, especially children. Following this ruling, the EPA additionally ruled that chlorpyrifos would remain classified as safe for use in other agricultural and industrial settings. This latter ruling resulted in a September 2007 petition to the EPA filed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which jointly requested that the agency ban the pesticide or issue final rulings on their acceptable levels (legally termed tolerances) in food. In September 2015, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals mandated that the EPA respond to this petition by either banning the chemical completely or issuing final rulings on tolerances of the chemicals residue on food products by October 31, 2015. mandated Following this court order, the EPA conducted a lengthy review and delivered a proposal on 6 November 2015, which suggested  as requested by the petition  that all currently published tolerances regarding chlorpyrifos residue on food should be revoked: proposal EPA is proposing to revoke all tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorpyrifos [including] tolerances for residues of chlorpyrifos on specific food commodities; on all food commodities treated in food handling and food service establishments in accordance with prescribed conditions; and on specific commodities when used under regional registrations. The agency is proposing to revoke all of these tolerances because EPA cannot, at this time, determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures for which there is reliable information, are safe. In March 2017, before the EPAs proposal was implemented, Scott Pruitt  the new EPA administrator under President Donald Trump  reversed course and argued the previous administrations scientific rationale was dubious, denying the petition: reversed course In October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The decision to deny the petition faced renewed scrutiny because the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, had been appointed by Trump to a White House manufacturing working group, and his company subsequently donated $1 million to Donald Trumps inauguration fund. Liveris also was scrutinized over reports that he met with Pruitt prior to his announcement reversing the ban.  appointed reports On 19 November 2017, using text from a viral Chelsea Handler tweet, the progressive Facebook Page "Really American" launched a petition with a call to action: using text   We explore each component of this memetic claim: Chlorpyrifos Was Invented by the Nazis as a Nerve Agent false. Chlorpyrifos is a specific chemical that belongs to a broader class of chemicals called organophosphates. While the Nazis were at the forefront of developing this broader class as both weapons and insecticides, they can not be credited with inventing chlorpyrifos specifically. In the 1930s, a German researcher named Gerhard Schrader at German chemical producer IG Farben (infamous for producing the gas most commonly employed at Nazi death camps) discovered that organophosphates interact with cholinesterase, an enzyme that aids in the production of an important neurotransmitter in animals. IG Farben interact Originally this effect was explored as a way to produce an insecticide, but one of Schrader's formulations, named Preparation 9/91, ended up being extremely toxic to humans. Schrader himself required hospitalization as a result of his own interaction with it. This discovery was reported to Nazi authorities, who mandated that all German researchers report any scientific development that could have military applications to the regime. required  Shraders discovery led to the discovery and production of some of the worlds most infamous organophosphate nerve gases, including Tabun and Sarin gases. Other countries, including Britain and the United States, also began research into organophosphates during WWII as weapons. After the war ended, research resumed into organophosphate use as an insecticide. led Chlorpyrifos, a specific formulation of an organophosphate, is included as one of many chemicals assigned to the Dow Chemical company in a 1963 patent which lists United States-based researcher Raymond Rigterink as the inventor. The only connection that chlorpyrifos has to the Nazi regime is its foundational work on the biological effects of organophosphates that researchers performed prior to, and during, WWII. Many nations built on this work after the war. patent Chlorpyrifos Causes Brain Damage Unproven, but likely. That organophosphates can be toxic to humans is nothing new. The idea, in developing such a chemical for use an insecticide, is to engineer an organophosphate that is below the threshold for affecting the human nervous system (via its effect on cholinesterase, something scientifically referred to as AChE inhibition) but is still toxic to insects. AChE inhibition From a scientific standpoint, the main controversy surrounds the potential residual effects that chlorpyrifos may have on the neurological development of fetuses and young children, which some studies have documented even at levels well below what is currently considered acceptable. In their 2016 decision to ban all tolerances for the chemical on food, the Environmental Protection Agency stated: In summary, the EPAs assessment is that the [Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health, CCCEH] study, with supporting results from the other 2 U.S. cohort studies and the seven additional epidemiological studies reviewed in 2015, provides sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required for AChE inhibition. The primary study cited by the EPA was conducted by the Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012. This study compared fetal exposure to chlorpyrifos (based on sampling of blood in the mother's umbilical cord) to differences in brain development:  study We investigated associations between [chlorpyrifos, CPF] exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 children, 5.911.2 y, selected from a nonclinical, representative community-based cohort. Twenty high-exposure children (upper tertile of CPF concentrations in umbilical cord blood) were compared with 20 low-exposure children on cortical surface features [...]. In a press release this study, CCCEH said: press release Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child [...] Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of [...] CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7. previously reported [...] Notably, the brain abnormalities appeared to occur at exposure levels below the current EPA threshold for toxicity, which is based on exposures high enough to inhibit the action of the key neurological enzyme cholinesterase. The present findings suggest that the mechanism underlying structural changes in the brain may involve other pathways. There have been several large-scale studies that show a similar association between exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates to neurological problems, and there have been several studies proposing hypotheses about why such an association exists, but there lacks a rigorous consensus on the later point. The Pruitt EPA, in essence, has used this uncertainty to punt a decision on its neurological effects to a later review date: lacks date Following a review of comments on both the November 2015 proposal and the November 2016 notice of data availability, EPA has concluded that, despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. EPA has therefore concluded that it will not complete the human health portion of the registration review or any associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues. As noted, Congress has provided that EPA must complete registration review by October 1, 2022. Because the 9th Circuit's August 12, 2016 order has made clear, however, that further extensions to the March 31, 2017 deadline for responding to the Petition would not be granted, EPA is today also denying all remaining petition claims. Pruitt highlighted specific methodological problems and uncertainties scientists raised during their 2016 review, but importantly neglected to mention that at the time of the panels meeting, they still concluded that the ban was necessary  even if the mechanistic aspects of chlorpyrifos danger are not yet settled. Jim Jones, the former head of the EPA chemical safety unit, contended in an interview with the New York Times that the science behind the neurological risks of chlorpyrifos is not questioned:  neglected interview They are ignoring the science that is pretty solid, Mr. Jones said, adding that he believed the ruling would put farm workers and exposed children at unnecessary risk. Speaking of the EPAs reversal, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement suggesting that Pruitts decision was not based on science, arguing an ethical responsibility to use science for the good of humanity: arguing Science should be used to prevent harm and to protect lives. The decision to put the agenda of a corporation over the lives and wellbeing of Americans is an egregious failure of our government to use strong, independent science to protect public health and safety. Chlorpyrifos Was Supposed to Be Banned in 2017, but Trump Is Now Allowing It True. In a broad sense, the "blame" for this chlorpyrifos ban reversal belongs only indirectly to Trump himself. He did, however, appoint anti-regulation crusader Scott Pruitt as administrator of the EPA, who subsequently decided to exercise his executive authority to reject the chlorpyrifos petition and reverse the previous EPAs ban, which is a power afforded to Pruitt through the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: anti-regulation afforded Act: Under section 408(d)(4) of the FFDCA, EPA is authorized to respond to a section 408( d) petition to revoke tolerance either by issuing a final rule revoking the tolerances, issuing a proposed rule, or issuing an order denying the Petition. If Pruitt had not exercised this authority, the EPA had a court-mandated deadline to make a ruling on the matter by 31 March 2017. Prior to this deadline, Pruitt issued his own ruling rejecting the work done by previous advisory boards. Had a different administrator been in charge, that call may have been very different.  to make a ruling As a result of Trump and Pruitts actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017. Dow Chemicals Gave President Trump $1 Million for His Inauguration True. Dow Chemicals donated one million dollars to Trumps inaugural committee, a donation described by political news site TheHill.com as among Trumps largest. Dow also donated $250,000 to the 2005 George W. Bush inaugural committee (whose administration also sought to limit regulation on chlorpyrifos), but not to either the 2009 or 2013 Obama inaugural funds. described 2009 2013 Responding to an April 2017 report alleging that Dow attempted to kill efforts to study the negative effects of chlorpyrifos, Dow contended that the gift was legal and not part of an influence campaign: report Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the companys $1 million donation to Trumps inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions is completely off the mark. Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, Schikorra said. Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity. Although it is clear that Dow Chemicals actively lobbied against a chlorpyrifos ban, we cannot rule on claims that their $1 million donation influenced Trump or Pruitt to change their view on the issue. lobbied While some aspects of the text included in the Chelsea Handler tweet and Really American petition, such as chlorpyrifoss connection to Nazi Germany and the scientific degree to which irreversible brain damage has been alleged, include some uncertainty, the bulk of its claims are true. The EPAs scientific community was certain enough, despite questions about methods or mechanisms, to agree with the petition that chlorpyrifos posed a risk to neurological health and should be banned. President Donald Trump, who did receive a significant amount of money from Dow Chemicals for his inauguration, unilaterally reversed this decision through his administrator Pruitts actions. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  "Chlorpyrifos: Production, Import/export, Use, and Disposal.
  Accessed 27 November 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos.
  Archived from 19 January 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Dursban Announcement.
  8 June 2000. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  "Pesticide Action Network North America; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  10 August 2015. Regulations.gov.  "Tolerance Revocations: Chlorpyrifos.
  6 November 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Widely Used Pesticide.
  29 March 2017. Biesecker, Michael.  "Pesticide Maker Tries to Kill Risk Study."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2017. Associated Press.  "EPA Chief Met with Dow Chemical CEO Before Deciding Not to Ban Toxic Pesticide.
  30 June 2017. Everts, Sarah.  "The Nazi Origins of Deadly Nerve Gases."
  C&EN.  17 October 2016. Rauh, Virginia A. et al.  "Brain Anomalies in Children Exposed Prenatally to a Common Organophosphate Pesticide"
  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  30 April 2012. Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health.  "Insecticide Linked to Altered Brain Structure.
  30 April 2012. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the April 19-21 2016 FIFRA SAP Meeting Held to Consider and Review Scientific Issues Associated with Chlorpyrifos: Analysis of Biomonitoring Data?
  21 April 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances.
  March 2017. Lipton, Eric.  "E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agencys Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide."
  The New York Times.  29 March 2017. Union of Concerned Scientists.  "How Dow Chemical Influenced the EPA to Ignore the Scientific Evidence on Chlorpyrifos.
  April 2017. Goodell, Jeff.  "Scott Pruitt's Crimes Against Nature."
  Rolling Stone.  27 July 2017. Wilson, Megan R.  "Corporate Donors to Trump Inaugural Revealed."
  Rolling Stone.  2 February 2017. During a recent visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, Californias Democratic Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed the Trump administrations temporary border closure last month cost $5.3 million in economic loss in the area and that future shutdowns could run into the billions of dollars. U.S. border officials on Nov. 25 stopped all traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, which serves as the gateway between Tijuana and San Diego. Its the busiest land border crossing in the United States and among the busiest in the world. The six-hour shutdown happened as migrants from Central America protested just south of the crossing. A group later rushed a border fence and were met with tear gas fired by U.S. border agents, who said some threw rocks at them. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in astatementthe same day that her agency will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons, and would not tolerate this type of lawlessness. Days after the closure, heres what Newsom claimed at apress conferenceheld near the San Ysidro crossing: Every time, with respect, that there is a flippant comment about shutting down the border, it impacts the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that are reliant on that trade and commerce on a daily basis. [There was] an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border. Youre talking about millions and millions of dollars  billions of dollars of economic consequence, if we continue with this rhetoric around shutting down the border without considering what that means. As the debate over the shutdown lingers, we wanted to know whether Newsom got his figures right about its economic impact. We set out on a fact check. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents attend operational readiness exercises at the San Ysidro port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa) Our research An average of 90,000 people legally pass north through the San Ysidro crossing each day, 70,000 in cars and 20,000 by foot. Many work, go to school or shop in the community of San Ysidro, which is the southernmost portion of San Diego, and points north, serving as an economic engine for the region. Californias other border crossings include Otay Mesa, about 11 miles east, along with Tecate, an hours drive east, and two in Calexico in Imperial County. For the specific dollar loss from the Nov. 25 closure, Newsom appears to have relied on an estimate from Jason Wells, executive director of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce. In an interview with PolitiFact California, Wells said the $5.3 million loss figure is an estimate based on an average day of sales for the 650 businesses in the area during the Nov. 20 to Jan. 6 holiday period. The area is home to outlet malls, money exchanges and many immigration and tax services, all a short distance from the border. Wells said it draws between 97 and 99 percent of its customers from Mexico. The threat of violence at the border led owners of The Las Americas Premium Outlets, a shopping center next to the port of entry, for example, to shut down the mall that day. Wells said some businesses in the area believe the $5.3 million figure is conservative, given the shutdown happened the Sunday after Black Friday. He added that approximately 75 percent of the areas businesses closed within about 90 minutes of the 11:30 a.m. closure of the border crossing. Just in that one Sunday alone, because of the Christmas and holiday season and so forth, we lost $5.3 million. Just in that one day, Wells added on theSan Diego Union-Tribunespodcast,The Conversation. Tijuana itself lost another $6.9 million. So, just between Tijuana and San Ysidro [there] was $12.2 million lost in one day. And thats not even counting Chula Vista, National City, San Diego, LA, all those areas that were affected by the closure. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at San Diegos Point Loma Nazarene University, said at least some of the economic loss was probably recovered. At this point, the impact on San Ysidro may have been primarily temporary during the relatively brief stoppage, Reaser said in an email. Shoppers appeared to have returned to stores at the Las Americas Premium Outlet, which means that sales could have been primarily delayed. Of course, if border closings start recurring, the picture could become much more grave. Wells said its our hope and prayers that the $5.3 million was made up by shoppers who returned to San Ysidro. Newsom didnt say anything about the potential recovery of this loss, but was generally on the mark. We also examined his claim that future shutdowns could cause billions, a figure thats a bit more difficult to assess. Billions in losses? Extended border closings and delays could mount to billions of dollars in economic losses over the coming months, Paola Avila, a vice president at the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg in a recentarticle. The uncertainty of border closures occurring at any time is a substantial economic threat for our region, she said. Our economies are inextricably linked. We produce together, we work together, we have families together, we have an integrated supply chain worth $2.5 billion. Jerry Sanders, the former Republican mayor of San Diego and current head of the citys regional Chamber of Commerce, echoed those sentiments in aNew York Timesarticle. If people are staying home because they are worried, the economic impact is obviously huge  we have 73 million crossings a year and we know that the regions $255 billion gross regional product depends on cross-border commerce, Sanders told the paper. Newsoms spokesman said the news reports supported the claim. Our ruling California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed there was an estimated $5.3 million in economic loss from the temporary closure of the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana on Nov. 25. He added billions of dollars are potentially at stake should future closures take place. Newsoms $5.3 million figure was supported by the head of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce, which represents hundreds of businesses on the U.S. side of the border. A leading economist in the region said San Ysidro is likely to recover at least some of that loss when shoppers who delayed their visits return, as long as there arent additional border closures. Newsom can also point to warnings from business groups about billions of dollars potentially being lost in future shutdowns. San Diegos regional chamber of commerce, including the citys former Republican mayor, said future closures could threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that flows through the international gateway. This portion of Newsoms claim, however, assumes a worst-case scenario of a prolonged weeks- or months-long closure. While President Trump has threatened to close the border, theres been no evidence that his administration is seeking an extended shutdown. We found Newsoms overall statement was accurate but could use some clarifications. We rated it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. A nine year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration enjoyed something of a resurgence in early 2018, most likely in light of ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Australian Canadian this   Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements, and omits to mention the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation.  A job Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.) illegal Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. analysis A driver's license This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. 12 states populations Food stamps An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes.  not eligible benefits According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes.  contribute "A place to live" Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.) report Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accomodation and domestic violence shelters.  It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage.  ITIN Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey.  analysis Health care Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. not eligible However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care.  six states emergency According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes.  analysis Child benefits It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit.  child tax credit Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments.  WIC Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. TANF Education In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. ruled While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program.  Program Program Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. allow Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships.  federal A tax-free business for seven years This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday." false Legal Information Institute. "United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a - Unlawful Employment of Aliens."
 Cornell University. 30 October 2004. Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession."
 Pew Research Center. 3 November 2016. Mendoza, Gilberto. "States Offering Driver's Licenses to Immigrants."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 30 November 2016. Krogstad, Jens Manuel;Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S."
Pew Research Center. 27 April 2017. Watson, Tara. "Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits?"
 Econofact. 28 March 2017. Christensen Gee, Lisa et al. "Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions."
 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2 March 2017. McCarty, Maggie; Siskin, Alison. "Immigration: Noncitizen Eligibility for Needs-Based Housing Programs."
 Congressional Research Service. 8 December 2015. Kasperkevic, Jana. "The American Dream: How Undocumented Immigrants Buy Homes in the U.S."
 Marketplace. 11 September 2017. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 13 December 2017. Ollova, Michael. "More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care."
 Pew Charitable Trusts. 8 August 2017. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview."
 Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. American Immigration Council. "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe."
 American Immigration Council. 24 October 2016. Hultin, Suzanne. "Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 29 October 2015. Mikkelson, David. "Tax Holidays for Immigrants."
 Snopes.com. 23 November 2012.