The Trans-Texas Corridor is dead.
Eight years after Gov. Rick Perry proudly introduced his plan for the future of transportation in Texas, his campaign declared that vision null and void in a blog post during the Republican gubernatorial debate Thursday night.The Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, said the post, which was entered at 7:26 p.m.The TTC -- unveiled in January 2002 as an approximately $200 billion plan for 4,000 miles of toll roads, rail lines and utility lines criss-crossing Texas in bundles -- has become an issue in the GOP primary contest between Perry, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina, a businesswoman from Wharton. Hutchison has released online ads alleging that the controversial initiative, which drew the wrath of Perry opponents and some allies, is alive and well. One of the most vocal critics of the corridor idea was the Texas Farm Bureau, because it would have required the state to acquire a considerable amount of farmland.We decided to investigate the health of the Trans-Texas Corridor.The Texas Department of Transportation pronounced the TTC dead, in concept and in name, in January 2009. But some remnants of the project are still on the books.For one, the Trans-Texas Corridor concept remains in the states Transportation Code and other official documents, which Hutchison says is evidence that the project endures. An attempt to remove those references failed during the 2009 legislative session with the death of a measure regulating the Texas Department of Transportation.As for the road projects that were envisioned under TTC, only two were still kicking after January 2009: the centerpiece, a tollway twin to the Interstate 35 corridor that would run from Dallas to San Antonio, and Interstate 69 between the Rio Grande Valley and Texarkana.But the I-35 twin was buried in October 2009 when a state environmental study of several years duration concluded with a no-build recommendation. The only vestige of that plan is the 49 northernmost miles of the Texas 130 tollway, which skirts the Austin areas eastern edge from Georgetown to Mustang Ridge, and another 40 miles south from there to Seguin that are under construction by a private consortium. However, that project was under way before Perry proposed the TTC.The I-69 project lives on and is currently in the planning stages.However, two years earlier, in 2007, the Legislature dealt a major blow to one of the main tenets of the TTC  for the state to issue long-term leases to private companies to build and operate toll roads  by placing a moratorium on new public-private toll road partnerships, with several exceptions. That moratorium in effect became permanent last year when the Legislature failed to extend the authority for such leases beyond Sept. 1, 2009.The roads in the corridor plan technically could be built without public-private partnerships, but the state doesnt have the money to do so. In any case, rural opposition to building any sort of twin roads to interstates was at the heart of the plans collapse.The I-69 initiative was one of the exceptions to the moratorium, but only a section of the approximately 600-mile road, the piece south of Refugio, can be a public-private partnership. And Chris Lippincott, a TxDOT spokesman, said that the decisions about exactly where the road will go and whether it will be tolled have not yet been made. The Texas Transportation Commission ordered that the road be laid down over existing highways, with free frontage roads alongside, except in areas where there is not an existing highway. This is much different from the original Perry concept of entire new road, rail and utility corridors.Texas still has a long-term transportation plan, but its not the TTC. In a January 2009 statement describing the changes being made to TTC, Amadeo Saenz, executive director of TxDOT, said that the new plan would be called Innovative Connectivity in Texas/Vision 2009 and that any projects that had existed under TTC, such as an I-35 twin, would be developed individually, if they happened at all.Summing up: We found that some language in the state Transportation Code and the much-altered highway I-69 project survive from Perrys original TTC vision. But its centerpiece paralleling I-35 is truly dead, and beyond that, the corridor plan retains only a faint statutory pulse. We rate Perrys statement as Mostly True.
FACT CHECK: Did Macy's refuse to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan?      Claim: Macy's refused to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] I just saw a post on Facebook stating that a veteran had applied to Macy's for a sales position and was told that because of her experience as a veteran she would not be hired. Origins:  On 6 August 2015, the Facebook page of "Joe the Plumber" published the following status update and photograph: status update Someone at Macy's needs an attitude adjustment... Like if you agree. Share if you have more respect for our vets than Macy's does. No additional information was supplied by that Facebook page about the woman pictured (such as the specific Macy's involved, the date of the purported interview, or any other corroboration of the claim). Furthermore, the claim's appearance in August 2015 led people to believe that the individual depicted had been recently considered and presumably denied employment by the Macy's department store chain. This item was one of several "shunned serviceman" rumors that circulated in mid-2015, but it was over a year old at that point. A March 2014 article identified the woman as Army Specialist Kayla Reyes (then 21), and the Macy's location as one in Fresno, California, and according to the article, Reyes merely speculated on Instagram that her history of military service had adversely impacted her employment prospects, a claim she later appeared to downplay: shunned serviceman circulated article She says she interviewed for a sales associate position on Feb. 20. Reyes says once she told the hiring manager about her service overseas, the questions came back to Reyes's time at war. "Being that you've been over there, you wouldn't really know how to approach people," Reyes says that's what the manager told her. She continues, "Once a customer's in your face, you wouldn't know how to do it. You wouldn't know how to react." Reyes says she left the interview wondering if her military service did her a disservice when applying for a civilian job. A spokesperson for Macy's provided a comment for the March 2014 article (published less than a month after Reyes' Instagram post initially circulated) indicating that Reyes' application was still under active consideration at that time. By that point, Reyes maintained that she had accepted an alternate offer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. After the claim recirculated in August 2015, the Facebook page of Macy's was deluged in angry comments from users over the more than year-old allegation. In response to one of those comments, a representative for Macy's stated that Reyes had in fact been offered (but declined) the position for which she interviewed: stated Thank you for reaching out to Macy's and giving us the chance to hear from us directly. Macy's commitment to our veterans is sincere and strong. As a company that stands for inclusion in the workplace and our stores, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We proudly employ thousands of veterans within our organization, as we know that veterans possess leadership skills that are an asset in a dynamic department store environment. As with any prospective employee, we actively looked for appropriate and available positions that would be best suited for Ms. Reyes' skills and experience level, and, in fact, identified and offered her a job at our store. We were disappointed when she declined. At Macy's, we have created a special Military Executive Development Program where we train veterans for key executive roles, giving them the tools and industry training to position them for success. In addition, Macy's has partnered with the Got Your 6 organization for a campaign in our stores to raise funds and awareness to assist veterans as they return to civilian life. Last year, we raised over $3.4 million with our customers and look forward to raising more funds this year. Thank you. -Carlos at Macy's Last updated:  6August 2015 Originally published: 6August 2015 Claim:  Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards beat a heroin addiction by having his blood replaced at a Swiss medical clinic.   Status:  False. Origins:  As the clich goes, look up 'debauchery' in the dictionary, and you'll find a picture of Keith Richards.  Although many tales about the   depravity of the Rolling Stones were deliberately concocted for publicity purposes (especially in the group's early days), the extent of Keith Richards' drug abuse over the last several decades would be hard to exaggerate: long periods of drug use and addiction, punctuated with occasional efforts at beating the drug habit.  These efforts ranged from going cold turkey to submitting to conventional medical means of ending addiction to undergoing controversial "experimental" cures.  Whatever the method, the results were generally the same: Richards would quit before the end of the program or lapse back into his familiar habits soon afterwards.  Although drugs have long been considered an indispensable part of the "rock 'n' roll lifestyle," too much of a good thing can be detrimental, even to rock musicians.  The Rolling Stones have been a top concert draw for thirty-five years and owe much of their popularity (not to mention their income) to their live shows.  But the Rolling Stones are not the Rolling Stones without a functioning Keith Richards, and at times his overindulgences have put concert tours in jeopardy due to his inability to weather rigorous and demanding tour schedules.  Such was the situation during the Stones' 1973 European tour, when Richards needed to kick a heroin addiction quickly and underwent a treatment in Switzerland that lead to rumors he had undergone the human equivalent of an automotive oil change and beat his drug habit by having all his blood replaced.  As Stones intimate Spanish Tony Sanchez later described the process in his tell-all book about the band: In the midst of this chaos it was time for the Stones to finalize plans for their seven-week tour of Britain and Europe. Keith knew that he was in no condition to go on the road, but there was no time for a cure. Withdrawing would have meant being laid up for weeks  and that was out of the question. Marshall Chess, however, had a solution. "There's a doctor from Florida who can get you off dope in a few days by changing your blood," he told Keith. "He did it for me in Mexico a while back, and it worked perfectly." The Florida doctor would carry out the blood change for Keith in a villa called Le Pec Varp, in Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland. Keith would fly directly to Switzerland after the Stones' concert in Birmingham on September 19. He would then be cured in time to play with the Stones again in Berne, Switzerland, on September 26. Marshall was going to Switzerland with Keith to have his blood changed at the same time. Sanchez went on to describe exactly how much Richards paid the Florida doctor, where he stayed during the treatment process, and what his hotel room cost.   Sanchez's accuracy leaves something to be desired, however  although Richards admitted the bare facts of Sanchez's book were true, of the details he said, "I couldn't plow through it all because my eyes were watering from laughter."  And the truth in this case follows that pattern: the basic facts are true, but the details have been embellished just a bit. Richards biographer Victor Bockris described the actual treatment process: The treatment involved a hemodialysis process in which the patient's blood was passed through a pump, where it was separated from sterile dialysis fluid by a semipermeable membrane. This allowed any toxic substances that had built up in the bloodstream, which would normally have been secreted by the kidneys, to diffuse out of the blood into the dialysis fluid. (According to Bockris, this treatment took place between the Rolling Stones' 23 September 1973 concert in Innsbruck, Austria, and their show in Berne, Switzerland three days later.   This coincides with his statement that "Richards was frightened by the process because it required being put to sleep for three days," but according to a Rolling Stones tour chronology, the group also performed in Berne on 25 September, which wouldn't have allowed for alleged "three days" of sleep the cure required.  Another passage in Sanchez's book, probably inaccurate, quotes Richards as saying the process took only forty-eight hours, but also mentions that he "spent the rest of the week just resting and building up" his strength.  Obviously Richards couldn't have taken off "the rest of the week" to recuperate and still have performed in a show that took place two days after the treatment began.) Bockris also claims that when Richards was having trouble obtaining a visa for the Rolling Stones' 1975 tour of the United States, Walter Annenberg, the U.S. ambassador to Britain, "helped arrange for Keith to get a visa so long as the U.S. embassy doctor in London could certify that there were no drugs in his bloodstream." So, once again Richards supposedly made the trip to Switzerland to have his blood purified in order to pass the requisite medical certification. Keith Richards himself later explained how the rumor about his "blood change" treatment began: Someone asked me how I cleaned up, so I told them I went to Switzerland and had my blood completely changed. I was just fooling around. I opened my jacket and said, 'How do you like my blood change?' That's all it was, a joke. I was fucking sick of answering that question. So I gave them a story. Of course, Richards doesn't exactly declare in the above statement that he really went to Switzerland; he merely claims that he told people he went to Switzerland.  So, did Richards have his blood changed, did he have it filtered, or is the whole thing a bit of lurid fiction?  The "blood change" claim is almost certainly untrue, because Richards himself says he made up the story, no real evidence supports it, and such a procedure is medically questionable in terms of both safety and effectiveness.  He probably did undergo some type of treatment involving blood filtering, however. True or not, the story's ubiquity is no mystery.  What's more extravagant and outrageous than a jaded rock star who has achieved international fame and has earned all money he could possibly need, yet chooses to spend his days in a drugged stupor?  A rock star who kicks the habit not by sweating it out cold turkey or by spending several weeks in a substance abuse program to kick both the physical habit and his psychological dependency on drugs, but by jetting off to Europe to swap his "dirty" blood for some fresh, clean stuff and be on his (temporarily drug-free) way in a couple of days.   Although Tony Sanchez may have made up or embellished many of his tales about his days with the Rolling Stones, he hit the nail on the head with an expression of outrage that neatly summarizes the essence of public's fascination with this legend: I couldn't help wondering where all this blood was coming from or resenting the decadence of debauched millionaires regaining their health, vampirelike, from the fresh, clean blood of innocents. Last updated:  16 May 2007    Sources:   Bockris, Victor.  Keith Richards.   New York: Poseidon Press, 1992.  ISBN 0-8160-3547-4  (pp. 211-212, 234).  Keith Richards    Karnbach, James and Carol Bernson.  It's Only Rock 'n' Roll.   New York: Facts on File, 1997.  ISBN 0-8160-3547-4  (pp. 144-147).  It's Only Rock 'n' Roll    Sanchez, Tony.  Up and Down with the Rolling Stones.   New York: William Morrow, 1979.  ISBN 0-306-80711-4  (pp. 281-284). Up and Down with the Rolling Stones In the summer of 2020, readers asked us to examine widely shared Facebook posts that claimed the Kroger supermarket chain was refusing to give customers cash change, and thereby overcharging them.  One widely shared post from July 9 stated that: post "Kroger will no longer keep coins in the drawer. Starting tomorrow. We will take them, but we can't give change. You can round up to the nearest dollar and donate it to the food bank, or round up and it goes onto your Kroger card as a credit. So it begins ..."   One week later, Facebook users began sharing a post that purported to describe a contentious transaction and conversation at a Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois. The post claimed that, in light of a coin shortage, Kroger was rounding up the price of items to the next dollar, where a customer pays in cash, and then refusing to give out change, thus effectively overcharging customers: users began sharing post ... Stopped by Kroger today for just a gallon of milk. Seems due to this "Change Shortage", their new policy is to round every cash purchase UP to the next full dollar! I can even accept if they insisted on they could not "give" any coin back.It cost $2.41. I offered $2.50 payment. The clerk refused the quarters, explained "due to change shortage" policy & demanded another dollar instead. I offered the $2.50 again.Clerk: "Your total is $3.00."Me: The total is $2.41, which $2.50 adequately covers & I don't care to give up the 9 cent, but I do NOT accept being up charged 60 cent while you refuse to take the coins I am offering.Clerk: it's $3.00 So literally the clerk was insisting I pay the $3 or they were refusing the sale. WTF ?!?...   A nationwide coin shortage did take place in the summer of 2020, contrary to a prevalent conspiracy theory that falsely claimed the crisis was fabricated or manufactured in order to usher in a cashless economy as part of a broader push towards a "New World Order." That conspiracy theory reared its head in the Kroger post, which included the line, "This is how being FORCED into a Cashless economy begins!" did take place conspiracy theory Remarkably, it is not clear what Kroger's company policy was with regard to providing cash change to customers, at the time the Bourbonnais Facebook post was originally published, in the early hours of July 16.  Initially, a spokesperson for the company provided Snopes a statement which asserted that, in light of the ongoing nationwide coin shortage, Kroger was offering customers the option of receiving the amount of their change in the form of loyalty card credit or rounding up their total and donating the remainder to charity, as well as the existing options of paying by credit or debit card, or paying by cash and getting cash change. The statement read: "We remain committed to providing our customers with an uplifting shopping experience and the freedom and flexibility to choose their payment method, including cash, during this unprecedented time. The Federal Reserve is experiencing a significant coin shortage across the U.S., resulting from fewer coins being exchanged and spent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many retailers and businesses, we are adjusting to the temporary shortage in several ways while still accepting cash. "Customers can switch their payment type (e.g., use debit or credit vs. cash), and through our upgraded technology, we can now load coin change to their loyalty card for use during the next shopping trip, provide coin change at a lane with coins available or round up their order to support The Kroger Co. Zero Hunger | Zero Waste Foundation, a public charity committed to creating communities free of hunger and waste." [Emphasis is added.] However, after this fact check was first published, we became aware of contradictory public statements attributed to Kroger earlier in July. In a July 15 article, KABC-TV reported that Kroger had "announced this week that they will not be returning coin change to customers who pay with cash." The article attributed the following statement to the company: KABC-TV "Currently our stores are collecting donations... by allowing customers to round up their order total to the next dollar... For customers that choose not to donate, our cashiers will load the coin value due back through their loyalty card. Customers can redeem the amount on their next transaction. We know this is an inconvenience for our customers and we appreciate their patience." That statement made no mention of the continued possibility of customers receiving their coin change as coin change, an omission which naturally indicates that Kroger policy at that time was to not provide customers with coin change.  On July 10, a named company spokesperson appears to have told another news outlet that Kroger policy was to no longer give out coin change. WXIX reported that: "Kroger spokesperson Erin Rofles confirmed Friday the grocer will no longer return coin change to customers. Instead, the remainders from cash transactions will be applied to customers loyalty cards and automatically used on their next purchase." WXIX We asked Kroger to explain these glaring discrepancies in the company's various public articulations of its policy on coin change. A spokesperson said that the statement initially provided to Snopes (which asserted that company policy was to give customers the option of receiving coin change) was "first issued on July 13," suggesting the company had been consistent in its messaging on the subject. We found the same wording in a series of tweets the company sent to a customer on July 14. Nevertheless, the company also told KABC-TV the opposite in an article published the following day.  tweets In one particularly egregious example of the confusion surrounding Kroger's articulation of its policy, on July 14 the company actually posted two different sets of tweets in response to the same customer's inquiries on Twitter. In one pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that customers could either have their change loaded on to their loyalty card or donated to charity (no mention of coin change). In a second pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that the company could accept a credit or debit card as payment, or load the customer's change on to their loyalty card, or have it donated to charity, or they could "provide coin change at a lane with coins available."  sets of tweets The company spokesperson suggested to Snopes that news articles reporting that Kroger was no longer giving out coin change might have been based on signs that have been erected inside Kroger supermarkets. The spokesperson provided the following example, which reads: ATTENTION CUSTOMERS:The Federal Reserve is currently experiencing a coin shortage. Please consider Rounding Up for Zero Hunger ZeroWaste, using exact change or another form of payment. We apologize for any inconvenience this maycause and appreciate your help.   A sign that apologizes to customers for the inconvenience associated with an ongoing nationwide coin shortage, suggests three ways to avoid the need to provide change, and omits to mention that customers can still get their change in coin form is very obviously likely to create the perception that Kroger no longer gives out coin change.  We asked Kroger for exact details on whether, when and how its policy on coin change had changed; as well as whether, when, and how those changes had been communicated to Kroger's regional divisions, in-store employees, and paying customers. We will update this fact check if we receive a response to those questions.  In its initial statement to Snopes, Kroger gave us the clear impression that its policy on coin change was unambiguous, made no mention of any existing confusion or misinformation over that policy, and made no mention whatsoever that the company and its spokespersons had previously made directly contradictory public statements about that policy.  In reality, Kroger and its spokespersons had indeed issued contradictory and confusing public statements, and had done so before the original "Bourbonnais" Facebook post was published in the early hours of July 16. As a result, we are changing the rating in this fact check from "false" to "Mixture." It's not entirely clear what took place at the Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois, specifically, but it appears to have been at least similar to the description in the widely shared Facebook post. A spokesperson for the company told Snopes:  "The associate who engaged with this customer was newly trained to the cashier role and misunderstood the various ways were adapting to the temporary national coin shortage. It is an isolated event, and weve since coached the associate and contacted the customer." This appears to be a tacit admission by the company that, in the specific instance highlighted in the Facebook post, the cashier did incorrectly insist on receiving $3 in cash for the milk, but that this was not in keeping with the company's policy, although as we outlined above, the company's public articulation of its policy on coin change has not been consistent. The image of a receipt that accompanied the viral Facebook post was dated July 15, and indicates that the customer in question paid $3 in cash for a $2.41 container of milk (after tax). A line in the receipt labelled "change shortage" had $0.59 next to it, and the "change" line had 0.00 next to it. That indicates that the customer did not receive cash change.  Shortly after midnight on July 16, a person who lives near Bourbonnais, whose name we are withholding because their original Facebook post was private, published what appears to be the original version of the subsequently widely shared post. (That original version of the post began "Stopped by Kroger today" while versions published later began "Stopped by Kroger yesterday," and the edit history of the post shows that a photograph of the receipt that showed the name of the cashier was replaced with a photograph showing the cashier's name obscured -- both signs that the post was published by the customer in question).  We contacted that person, whose identity we verified. In an email to Snopes, that person reiterated the version of events presented in the original Facebook post. The customer clarified that it was not possible to purchase the milk with a debit or credit card because the patron lives on "a cash basis." To complicate matters further, on July 22 a Facebook page with the name "KROGER-Bourbonnais" published responses to the viral post, explaining that the company was "currently allocating the remaining change that you would typically receive after your purchase to your Kroger Loyalty Card," but later wrote that "we are not rounding up ... it was just a mistake of [sic] a cashier." explaining later Those posts were not written by an authentic Kroger company account, a spokesperson told Snopes, adding "Our social media team isnt affiliated with it." Mac Guill, Dan. "Did a Nationwide US Coin Shortage Occur in Summer 2020?"
  Snopes.com.  8 July 2020. Grider, Geoffrey.  "Remember the Psy-Op Called the Great Toilet Paper Shortage? Now We Are Pretending There's a National Coin Shortage ..."
  NowTheEndBegins.com.  11 July 2020. Updated [23 July 2020]: Rating changed from "false" to "Mixture." Article substantially updated to include Kroger's previous, contradictory public articulations of its policy on coin change. The only way to make New Jersey a more affordable place to live is to have government spend less money, according to Gov. Chris Christie.The Republican governor offered that solution when a man called into a Jan. 22 radio program and expressed concerns about the cost of living in New Jersey. The caller wanted to know the plan for keeping people like him in the state.Christie told the man that property taxes have increased minimally in the last two years, because government spending has been capped. On the state level, spending is now lower than it was under Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in fiscal year 2008, according to Christie.Now were making a difference. Because you know why? Were capping spending, Christie said on New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program. Were saying youve got to spend less, and on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor, who is seeking re-election this year, repeated the state spending claim on Thursday during a campaign stop at Tops Diner in East Newark.Christie is right that state spending in the current fiscal year is lower than the spending level in fiscal year 2008, but the governors claim ignores the fact that spending has still increased with each new state budget since he took office.Lets break down the numbers:For fiscal year 2008, Corzine approved a spending plan of about $33.47 billion, according to state Department of the Treasury reports. Final state spending that year ended slightly higher, at $33.61 billion, according to department reports.In June 2012, Christie signed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that appropriates about $31.65 billion in state spending.So, the governors current budget marks a nearly $2 billion decrease in state spending as compared to fiscal year 2008.But just because state spending is lower than it was five years ago, doesnt mean it hasnt increased on Christies watch.In his first budget after taking office in January 2010, Christie approved a roughly $28.36 billion spending plan for fiscal year 2011. For the next budget year -- fiscal year 2012 -- the governor approved a roughly $29.69 billion budget.That means, in terms of the annual appropriations acts signed by Christie, state spending has increased by about $3.29 billion, or 11.6 percent, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013. In response to our findings about spending increases during Christie's tenure, Treasury spokesman Bill Quinn said the following in an e-mail: We think your original question has been conclusively answered in the Governors favor as unequivocally true. You are now posing an entirely different inquiry that is not based on what the Governor actually said on the air that led to your fact check.The increased spending since fiscal year 2011 is due in part to the governors policies boosting the states economy, leading to higher tax revenues, according to Quinn. He pointed out how two of the major areas of higher spending have been in education and pension contributions.Quinn added that the tough decisions needed to put the state budget on sound, responsible fiscal footing in fiscal years 10 and 11 allowed us to grow and make key investments in FY 12 and 13.Our rulingIn response to a caller during New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program, Christie claimed that on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor is correct in that the fiscal year 2013 budget is nearly $2 billion less than the level of state spending under Corzine in fiscal year 2008. But Christies claim ignores the fact that state spending has still increased during his tenure.That means the governors statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That meets our definition of Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. In January 2017, an image macro circulated via Facebook taking aim at Muslim refugees in Canada by misstating the nature of several benefits available to them. The misleading nature of the macro begins with suggestion that a smiling gentleman depicted in the image actually entered Canada with "two wives and six children," even though this photograph has actually been used by various "funny pictures" web sites for several years. funny pictures The "two wives" claim appears to play off of reports of Muslim male immigrants secretly practicing polygamy, even though the practice of having more than one spouse at a time is illegal in Canada. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that law in a November 2011 ruling involving a non-Muslim polygamous sect. reports ruling According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a federal agency that helps both immigrants and refugees, that law is taken into account during the immigration process. helps The agency told us: Polygamy is illegal in Canada, and therefore multiple marriages are not recognized under Canadas immigration laws. This means that a permanent resident or Canadian citizen can only immigrate with one spouse after having dissolved other marriages to convert their polygamous marriage to a monogamous one. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has advised the [United Nations Refugee Agency] that individuals in a polygamous marriage should not be referred for resettlement to Canada. As well, IRCC officers assess privately sponsored refugee cases against Canadas immigration laws, including monogamous marriage requirements. Therefore, individuals practising polygamy would be inadmissible to Canada. United Nations Refugee Agency The reference to "privately sponsored refugees" concerns a separate program, though Syrian and Iraqi refugees are currently exempt from having to show documentation recognizing them as such. Regarding the claim of a "government-owned townhouse" and "a three bedroom government-owned apartment," the agency said: program, The government does not own apartments or townhouses which are then given to resettled refugees. Immigration officials also provided examples of regional average payments for refugees and their families distributed through the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP), which can be seen below:   The agency said: Resettlement support normally includes a one-time start-up payment to assist the refugees in establishing a household in Canada, as well as monthly income support to help them get through their first year in Canada. Monthly support is provided to cover the costs of food and incidentals, shelter and transportation. This amount varies depending on the family size and is guided by the prevailing provincial social assistance rates in the province where the refugee(s) reside. Income support for most resettled refugees is provided for their first year in Canada by the federal government, private sponsors or a mix of both. When income support ends, it is normal for some refugees in need to transition to provincial or territorial social assistance support. The program also provides referrals to agencies in the country's various provinces who can help them acclimate themselves after emigrating. According to the agency: provides Among other things, these service provider organizations help newcomers to find and retain employment, including referrals to assess foreign credentials. They also offer free language assessment and training to help newcomers contribute to the economy. Support Services, including child care, transportation assistance, translation, interpretation, crisis counselling and provisions for disabilities, are offered across the Settlement program to enable access to direct settlement services. The reference to immigrants' being given "health cards" is a possible allusion to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) which provides "limited, temporary coverage of health-care benefits" to refugees until they qualify for the country's public healthcare system, which is administered through provincial and territorial governments and not funded by the federal government. IFHP public Immigration officials noted that as of 1 April 2016, IFHP beneficiaries are also eligible for urgent dental care (meaning "conditions involving pain, infection or trauma"), and limited vision care. As noted above, the benefits payments distributed to refugees do cover the cost of buying foods, but the macro's statement regarding "access to a halal-only food bank" misleadingly presents that as another government service. In reality, those services are often operated by private organizations such as the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute, or CMWI. We were unable to get in touch with CMWI for more information prior to publication, but the group's president, Yasmin Ali, explained the circumstances facing many of the people they help in a September 2016 interview: CMWI interview When [refugees] come here, yes, they are given help by the government, but they have to start afresh. They are given some basic furniture, but they have to buy every single thing to equip themselves in a home, from a broom to pots and pans to sheets to every single thing, so the money doesn't stretch very far. With the kids going to school and needing clothing and ... school supplies, the extra food that they can get through Winnipeg Harvest is a good help to free up some money so they can actually access other necessities, pay other bills and get other things that they need. The macro closes by stating that "voicing your opinion" could open people up to hate speech charges. In reality, the country's anti-hate laws do not address just general "opinions," but hate speech: laws Under section 318, everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. The term genocide is defined to mean killing members of an identifiable group or deliberately inflicting on an identifiable group conditions of life calculated to bring about the groups physical destruction. Section 318(4) of the Criminal Code defines an identifiable group as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. No prosecution under this provision can be undertaken without the consent of the provincial Attorney General. Under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. Section 319(7) defines communicating to include communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means. Public place is defined to include any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or implied. Statements include words spoken or written or recorded electronically, electromagnetically or otherwise, and also include gestures, signs or other visible representations. IRCC also provided the following statement: The ongoing conflict in Syria has triggered the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it the most by providing refuge to the worlds most vulnerable people and has welcomed generations of newcomers who have helped us build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. Immigration from all streams provides significant benefits to Canada and to the immigrants who have come here to build their new lives. When we come together to welcome and integrate newcomers, it strengthens our communities and contributes to our countrys successit helps build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. The agency also noted that  according to preliminary findings  53 percent of privately-sponsored adult refugees living outside of Quebec by 1 March 2016 had already found employment. IRCC said the employment rate for adult refugees taking part in government assistance programs outside of the same province was around 10 percent, which it attributed to "substantially lower language skills." Javed, Noor. "GTA's secret world of polygamy." The Toronto Star. 24 May 2008. CBC News. "Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C. Supreme Court." cbc.ca. 23 November 2011. Lee, Donna. "New food bank helps Syrian refugees as they settle in Winnipeg." CBC News. 19 September 2016. 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. Frankly, PolitiFact Oregon was surprised to spota press release fora new radio campaign ad designed to set the record straight on Oregons prisons laws. We didnt know there was a need. Was there another ballot measure pending? Was somebody spreading falsehoods about prison laws? Didnt Oregonians vote on sentencing back in 2008? What was going on?Steve Doell is a longtime advocate of crime victims and president ofCrime Victims United, which helped get Measure 11 passed in 1994. This ad campaign is his latest venture, a nonprofit that he says is separate from Crime Victims and one that he said is aimed at giving people the facts about prison statistics.He wants to remind voters through the Truth in Sentencing Project that fewer than one in four convicted felons is sent to prison. Less than one-half of one-percent are in prison for drug possession. And this:About 7 in 10 of Oregons inmates are in prison for violent crimes and serious sex offenses including felony assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, manslaughter, child molestation, rape, attempted murder, and murder, he writes in the press release.In the accompanying radio ad, he says two-thirds of prisoners are violent criminals. In short, Oregons system works, he said. Doell got his numbers from theOregon Criminal Justice Commission, which administers Oregon's felony sentencing guidelines and serves as a statistical and data clearinghouse. Off we went, with a detour stop at the Department of Corrections.According to theagencys July 2012 inmate population profile, 9,878 of the 14,186 people in prison were there because of crimes against a person. That is 70 percent, or more than two-thirds. Hold on to the idea of a person crime.The same population profile also tells us that nearly 9,300 of those inmates are in prison for crimes one could describe as violent: Assault, homicide, rape, kidnapping, robbery, sodomy and sex abuse. Thats about 65 percent, which is about two-thirds.We caught up with Craig Prins, the criminal justice commissions executive director, who confirms that 70 percent of inmates have committed a crime against a person -- but he wanted to make sure we understand that that doesnt mean they are all necessarily violent criminals, on par with murderers and child molesters.For example, a drunken driver who doesnt kill anyone is categorized as committing a crime against a person, even though no one was hurt. A drunken driver who hits and kills another person has definitely committed a crime against a person, even though there was no intent to commit homicide. For Prins there is a distinction. For Doell, there isnt. We offer the information for readers to assess.We also have another point that readers may want to keep in mind: More non-violent offenders are being admitted into prison -- which means that the ratio of violent offenders may drop in the future.Thats because in 2008, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 57, which increased sentences for drug and property offenders. It was a legislative proposal drafted in response to a more punishing measure sponsored by Doell and others. Property and drug offenders sentenced under Measure 57 are expected to add 1,000 beds to the prison system over 10 years with overall bed growth closer to 2,000.Prins and others onGov. John Kitzhabers Commission on Public Safety have been tasked with finding ways to improve public safety and save money. The commission is to come up with ideas for the 2013 Legislature. And while Doell insists the Truth in Sentencing Project is not in response to an outside force, its clear this governor wants to make changes in state prisons.A June report by the Pew Center on the States, which is providing technical help to Oregon to review numbers and tease out prison growth drivers, states thatOregon in 2011 admitted more low-risk offenders than in 2000. Also, the share ofproperty, drug and other offenders increased from 53 percent of new admits in 2000 to 59 percent in 2011. (p.20) In other words, trends are changing and they may change more with the approval of Measure 57, which went into effect in January.Doell says the state doesnt have the greatest record on correctly projecting bed additions. He also doesnt think Measure 57 will change the ratio that much. I dont think theres going to be a significant change, I think it could be a percentage point or points here and there, he said.We think readers should be mindful that there is a forecast and new sentencing guidelines that may change the ratio in the future, but we dont know for sure by how much, if at all. The state would not hazard a projection other than the overall increase of 2,000 beds, of which at least 1,000 come from Measure 57.As for a ruling? It is factually correct that as of now, 70 percent of inmates are in prison for crimes against a person, and that 65 percent are in there for crimes we can see are violent in nature. That is about seven in 10 or two-thirds. We rate the statement True. In January 2021, Snopes received several inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely shared meme that claimed Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man charged with taking part in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-U.S. President Donald Trump, was in fact a registered Democrat and supporter of President Joe Biden. Seefried came to the attention of the FBI after photographs showed him carrying a Confederate flag inside the halls of Congress. The meme consisted of one of those photographs, along with the following text: "This 'domestic terrorist,' who brought a Confederate flag into the Capitol during this outrageous attack on America has been arrested in his home state of Delaware. His name is Kevin Seefried. He's a registered Democrat and Biden supporter. Is Pelosi going to impeach Biden now too?"   The popularity of the meme can be seen in the following screenshot, which shows just a selection of Facebook posts containing it: Facebook posts   As evidence in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat, some Facebook users cited a listing for a "Kevin D Seefried" on the website VoterRecords.com: listing   However, the only credible evidence available strongly indicates that Seefried is a supporter of Trump, who took part in a destructive effort to overturn the lawful and legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, which Biden won. In court filings, an FBI special agent wrote that Seefried had said he traveled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 "to hear President Trump speak."  Furthermore, the only supposed evidence presented in support of the claim that Seefried is a registered Democrat and Biden supporter is fatally flawed. The voter registration listing came from an unofficial source, and in any case referred to a voter born in 1986, and therefore decades younger than Seefried, who is 51 years old. Since we don't have voter registration information for Seefried, we can't definitively say that he is not a registered Democrat, and so we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." However, the available evidence strongly indicates that, whatever his voter registration might be, Seefried acted in support of Trump and took part in an effort to overturn Biden's legitimate victory  hardly in keeping with the meme's baseless description of him as a "Biden supporter." The Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, which led to several deaths, damaged the reputation of the movement  spearheaded by Trump  to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election using baseless conspiracy theories that falsely alleged widespread electoral fraud. widespread electoral fraud As a result, some Trump supporters attempted to distance that movement from the events of that day, falsely claiming that the attack had been planned or perpetrated by left-wing agents provocateurs, in particular antifa (short for "anti-fascist"). We have addressed and debunked several strands of that conspiracy theory, and the "Biden supporter Seefried" meme appears to be just another such example. addressed debunked several strands On Jan. 14, Seefried and his 23-year-old son Hunter were charged with the following three offenses each: charged An affidavit written by an FBI special agent stated that: both Seefried and his son were captured on video breaking into the Capitol through a broken window; that Hunter Seefried had cleared glass from that semi-broken window in order to clear a path for entry; and that once inside, Seefried brandished a Confederate flag through the halls of the Capitol.  affidavit According to the FBI affidavit, the two men were identified because of a tip-off from one of Hunter's co-workers, who claimed Hunter had bragged about his participation in the attack on the Capitol. The co-worker also recognized Hunter's face from a police flier requesting information from the public about persons of interest from the riot. According to the FBI, both men confirmed their involvement in the attack on the Capitol during interviews conducted on Jan. 12. The affidavit states that Kevin Seefried told federal agents he had travelled from Delaware to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 in order to hear Trump speak at a rally at the Ellipse, near the White House, and that he had subsequently marched from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Seefried reportedly told the FBI he had brought the Confederate flag with him from Delaware, where it normally flies outside his house. Worcester County, Maryland court records list Kevin Seefried's month and year of birth as March 1969, meaning he was 51 years old when he was charged. The address listed in those records is located in Laurel, Delaware, and matches the location of his family home, which the Delaware News Journal visited and described in a Jan. 15, 2021 report. report The same residential address is found in Worcester County court records for Hunter Seefried, and those records list his month and year of birth as November 1997, meaning he was 23 years old when charged.  Given that Kevin Seefried is 51 years old, he could not be the same individual listed as a registered Democrat on VoterRecords.com  the only piece of supposed evidence put forward to support the claim that Seefried is a secret Biden supporter. However, Seefried's actual voter registration information, if it exists, was not readily available, so we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that he is registered as a Democrat, notwithstanding his current political views. Snopes contacted attorneys for both Kevin and Hunter Seefried, in an effort to clear up those uncertainties, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  If we receive information that clarifies Seefried's voter registration status, we will update this fact check accordingly. For now, we're issuing a rating of "Unproven." Claim:  70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:  1. John F. Kennedy died there in 19632. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after3. Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day  every day) A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.' Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million. The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child  her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries werefree and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.) How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects? Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally  now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable. Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate  identification  no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income  an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word. My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care  not top of line. Their (the illegals) medical care is free  simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.) There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this? As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her. In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement. Origins:  Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital is familiar even to many non-Texans as the site where both President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself shot by Jack Ruby), were transported for emergency life-saving procedures in November 1963. Now, in 2006, Parkland Memorial is well known for its maternity program, which includes nine prenatal clinics and employs 72 doctors training to  become obstetricians-gynecologists and 45 nurse-midwives. According to the Dallas Morning News, in 2005 Parkland Memorial staff delivered 15,590 babies, an average of more than 42 infants per day. In a pair of June 2006 articles, the Morning News reported that a recent patient survey indicated 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants (while a similar New York Times article pegged the yearly tally for 2005 as "at least 56%").  The hospital spent $70.7 million delivering babies born there in 2004, with taxpayers covering about 40% of the costs ($31.3 million) directly, and federal and state funds (primarily Medicaid) making up the remainder.  Because of large payments from the Medicaid system, Parkland still ended 2004 with a $7.9 million surplus in obstetrics. A recent hospital analysis concluded that the average maternity ward patient at Parkland is a 25-year-old, married Hispanic woman giving birth to her second child.  The Parkland staff does not ask maternity patients whether they are illegal immigrants, so the preponderance of illegal aliens among this group has to be inferred through other means.)  (Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.)  EMTALA Parkland's policies contrast with those of the public hospital system in neighboring Tarrant County: Uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status have flocked in recent years to public hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards in Texas, California and other border states. Their care has swelled costs for struggling hospitals and increased the health care bills that fall to states and counties, giving ammunition to opponents of illegal immigration who complain of undue burdens on local taxpayers.  As a result, health care has become one of the sorest issues in the border states' debate over illegal immigration. Facing harsh criticism from residents, public hospitals are confronted with an uneasy decision: demand immigration documents from patients and deny subsidized care to those who lack them, or follow the public health principle of providing basic care to anyone who needs it.  In Texas, two of the biggest public hospitals chose differently.  The Parkland Health and Hospital System, which serves Dallas County, offers low-cost care to low-income residents with no questions asked about immigration status.  "I don't want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents," said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. "We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care." In Fort Worth, in neighboring Tarrant County, JPS Health Network requires foreign-born patients to show legal immigration documents to receive financial assistance in nonemergencies, like elective surgery and the treatment of routine or chronic illnesses. Executives said that their first responsibility was to legal residents, but that they were uncomfortable about having to make such distinctions. Administrators from both hospital systems indicated that some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions: While Texas border hospitals often get "anchor babies"  children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen  most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.  Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.  The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.  These cases are not affected by new regulations that went into effect on July 1 [2006] requiring Medicaid patients to provide proof of citizenship, Texas health officials said. They said they believed that only small numbers of illegal immigrants had received other Medicaid benefits.    Last updated:  25 August 2015     Sources:   Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Is Brimming with Babies."   Dallas Morning News.  11 June 2006.    Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Will Treat All Moms-to-Be."   Dallas Morning News.  12 June 2006.    Preston, Julia.  "Texas Hospitals' Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration."   The New York Times.  18 July 2006  (p. A1). Columbus politics is dominated at the moment by a fiery debate over a proposal to overhaul collective bargaining laws for public workers. Known as Senate Bill 5, the legislation is drawing raucous crowds to the normally serene Statehouse atrium.Republican Gov. John Kasich, backed by a Republican-controlled legislature, wants to end collective bargaining for state workers and abate the ability of city workers, including firefighters and police officers, to bargain for pay and benefits. Republican leaders say such reforms are needed to lower costs and ease the financial burden on the state and city budgets.Democratic leaders, flanked by a few Republcian office holders and lots of labor leaders, argue that teachers and firefighters and other union workers are not overpaid and that collective bargaining keeps both workers and employers in check at a minimal cost.The Ohio Democratic Party on Feb. 14 boiled down its argument in a Twitter message. Both the brevity and first word of the tweet caught Politifact Ohios attention: FACT: the special assistant in @johnkasich's office makes over three times more than an average #OH firefighterGiven the debate that rages on behind the tweet, we thought it was worth checking out.The tweet refers to Jai Chabria, a senior advisor, or special assistant, to Kasich, says ODP communications director Seth Bringman.Chabria, who worked with Kasich at the defunct Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers, is part of governors inner-circle, whose members are paid six-figure salaries, a point that received a good bit of attention earlier this year. Chabrias annual salary is $145,000 and is not subject to any collective bargaining deal. He serves at the pleasure of the governor.ODPs Bringman says the tweet also refers to the average annual salary of an Ohio firefighter of $41,160. He cities the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the tweets source.The bureau indeed shows that the mean, or average, salary of an Ohio firefighter is $41,160. The figure does not include benefits and is based on the data compiled in May 2009, the latest available.Its important to note that the figure, however, is based on six surveys of 200,000 employers collected over a three-year period, not on an actual accounting of every Ohio firefighters salary.Looking for something more current, Politifact Ohio compared the bureaus survey data to actual salary data collected by the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, which manages the retirement plans for safety officers. Spokesman David Graham says the fund doesnt track the average salary of an Ohio firefighter but actual raw data is compiled in actuary reports.According to one such report in 2010 by Buck Consultants, there are 13,001 full-time fire personnel in Ohio whose collective annual salary totaled $860,966,828. Dividing the total salary by the number of personnel produces an average annual salary of $66,000.The actuary reports also reveal that firefighters with one-year of experience are paid an average salary of $45,000. Fire personnel with 40 years of experience can earn $80,000. The data can also be sliced numerous other ways to produce a range of salary figures.But the pension fund figures also include other ranking officers, like captains or chiefs, who earn more and would raise the average. The data also doesnt separate firefighters who are cross-trained as paramedics or in hazardous materials and typically earn more than others firefighters.It includes the fire chief from Cleveland to the firefighter from Piqua, Graham said. He couldnt say exactly what ranks and specialties are in the latest figures but said captains and others all qualify under Ohio Revised Code as firefighters and therefore are members of the pension fund.So where does this leave the Ohio Democratic Partys tweet on the Truth-O-Meter?Chabrias salary of $145,000 is more than three times the salary figure of $41,160 that the party cited. And its based on widely accepted data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is widely regarded as a reliable source for statistics. But its important to know that some of that data, collected in surveys, is several years old.Chabrias salary is also more than three times the average salary of a firefighter with one year of experience, according to the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Funds actuary reports. (But only 3.7 percent of current firefighters had 1 year of experience, the report shows. )While we would like to have more current data, the overall pension fund numbers are skewed because they also include pay figures from higher ranking, higher paid officers.All of this  also underscores the point often made by the Politifact: Statistics often need illumination. We rate the tweet as Mostly True.